RE: Cynical assumptions. (Full Version)

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



Message


gooddogbenji -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 8:30:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I pegged "WhipTheHip" as a troll when he first started posting.  Nothing he has done or said since has changed my mind.

Watching the train wrecks he causes is sometimes interesting, but more often simply tiring.



Well said!  I have to say, I don't think he's really a troll, because for me a troll is only out to get laid/whipped/whatever.  I don't think the OP is that.  I think he would love to build up a relationship, but unfortunately is not at all willing to listen or learn.  He knows us all from his knowledge of himself, and therefore, all of his strengths and weaknesses are traits of us all.

But as to his train wrecks being tiring, they only get fun when people start having fun with him.

Yours,


benji




WhipTheHip -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 8:38:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
WhiptheHip: I just got round to reading this thread again, and appreciate your comments on this page. It's comforting to know. I am not sure if it's being part submissive I want, or if I just want to know a Dominant can have a "softer side" once in a while, and "let go" of any rigidity in their personality every so often (if
it's there, which I think I've seen it is, in some Doms).  Anyway, I am talking to myself again...[:D]- Susan 


Thank you.  Like most things in the real world, few things are really 100% pure. 
In the real world there is almost always a spectrum and a continuum.  Dominance
and submission would fall some place on a bell curve.  A few people are going
to be at the extremes.  Someone in the top 2% would be in the second standard
deviation.  It is virtually impossible for someone to be 100% dominant or for
that matter anything in this world to be 100% pure anything. 
 
Few males or for that matter few females have the soft side I have.  On the
other hand, I've been accused of having a Napolean complex.  I'd like to see
the world become a kinder, gentler place, and would use force to do it if I
could.  The world might have become a better place had Napolean
conquered it. 
 
I really can't work for anyone because I always need to be the leader, but
few employers try as hard as I do to make their employees happy.
 
My father was a self-made millionaire who ran a half-dozen businesses.
My mother was young, beautiful, and bi-polar.  She had been his secretary. 
Even though my mother was super loving, there were times my father
could be more loving than my mother.  My father had a business side,
a head of the family side, and a very, gentle, loving side that is normally
reserved for the kind of love only given by a mother.  I lack a lot of
thoughness my father had, and a lot of the loving, gentleness he had.
 




gooddogbenji -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 8:48:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip

The world might have become a better place had Napolean
conquered it. 
 


The world might have been a better place had Attila, Hannibal, Ghengis, or Mussolini conquered it.  Chances are just as good that it would have been a worse place for a lot of people, and chances are best it would have been just about the same, because humans are humans.


quote:



My mother was young



Most people's mothers were young at some point.  Not sure, but I think it has something to do with the life cycle of humans.

Yours,


benji




SusanofO -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 8:57:31 AM)

WhiptheHip: Well, I think it's a noble idea. I don't think it might be possible to convert everyone (benji is right) - but it would be nice if people were more empathic, sometimes, I think. But - there will always be mean people and killers, etc. in the world.
I see some of them (mean people) when I volunteer at the center in my town for abused unmentionables. Last week, there was a guy who was two hours late to visit his unmentionable at the center I volunteeer at, because it interfered with his golf game. He had not bothered to see his unmentionable for two years, before he said he'd show up, and his unmentionable was so excited about just the possibility of seeing him. We had a chat that was quite memorable (hopefully) about the value of keeping one's word. I was so mad he was that late, if I'd had things my way, I would have kicked his behind clear across the room. But anyway...  

I am more like my father, in terms of personality. I read a theory once that the eldest child is more like the dad, regardless of gender, and the second child is more like the mother, regardless of gender, and in my family, it's really seemed to be true- my middle sister is a replica of my mother (who is dead now). My dad is a little better than me at maintaining a semblance of emotional distance from people in crisis than I am, but he had to develop that skill, because his career was social work, and otherwise he'd have burned out a lot sooner at his job. I just do volunteer work, and come and go as I please when I work w/abused kids.  

My dad is pretty low-key, but he is extremely observant and really a sharp guy mentally, and he has a killer sense of humor. He is definitely empathic, but doesn't always wear it on his sleeve, so to speak. My mom was very entertaining, but also pretty aggressive, and kind of mouthy, in a cute way. She was a real "life of the party" type. She kind of exploded into a room. If I had to classify my parents in a bdsm context, they both would be Dominants/Dommes. My sister would definitely be a Domme. I guess I just "gave up" being around all that dominant personality type atmosphere, and became a submissive person. But I like it, pretty much. But I do, on occasion, realize a Domme tendency or two in myself. I don't think, still, though, I'd classify myself as a Domme. I have "possible Switch" in my profile (because I am still not sure even if I am that. I think I might be. But I know I am submssive). I agree with your "continuum theory", btw.   




Level -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 9:48:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I pegged "WhipTheHip" as a troll when he first started posting.  Nothing he has done or said since has changed my mind.

Watching the train wrecks he causes is sometimes interesting, but more often simply tiring.



Well said!  I have to say, I don't think he's really a troll, because for me a troll is only out to get laid/whipped/whatever.  I don't think the OP is that.  I think he would love to build up a relationship, but unfortunately is not at all willing to listen or learn.  He knows us all from his knowledge of himself, and therefore, all of his strengths and weaknesses are traits of us all.

But as to his train wrecks being tiring, they only get fun when people start having fun with him.

Yours,


benji


Speaking of....... I noticed that JessicaPower is back [sm=hair.gif]....... how long until those epic "JessicaKayPower vs Maxwell Smart" threads start showing back up? lol.....




gooddogbenji -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 9:54:07 AM)

Hey, I think Hitler was right.  If I were him, I'd go out and gather slaves to serve me.  LOL

Yours,


benji




WhipTheHip -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 10:32:46 AM)

Hi Susan of O,
 
I don't think it is possible to convert the vast majority of people.
So, I don't try hard to convert people.  I am mainly interesting
in getting good-natured people to join forces. But I am different
than most good-natured people.  If I was omnipotent, if I could
I would transform all mean, cruel, ill-tempered people into
kind and compassionate people, I would.  That would be my
first choice.   If couldn't do this, I would banish them all to the
cornfield like the petulant kid in the Twilight Zone episode,
or find someway to make them disappear.  Unlike most
really good-natured people, I would treat mean, cruel people
like I would treat a rabid pit bull.   I feel sorry for people who
are mean and cruel, but would have no problem painlessly 
putting them down.
 
Best regards,
Michael.   
 




SusanofO -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 10:34:31 AM)

WhiptheHip: We may have that in common, my friend. Mean people (non-consensually mean people I mean) suck.

- Susan




wandersalone -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 10:39:37 AM)

hmmmm still thinking about Benji and Julia's wonderful mathematical equation about dominates and submits...errrr I mean submissives, since LaTigresse has volunteered her services, and there is Benji and Julia and if I also kind of maybe hope you let me join in also, does that mean we will have world domination or submission or something? (Canada, USA, Australia....maybe we need someone from the UK also)
..... ok back to the 3454587 posts in WTH's thread......




Wolfie648 -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 10:52:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip

So much for giving others the benefit of the doubt. 

Is this so hard to understand?  I guess it must be. 
 
What I find strange are males and females who must be dominant
24/7/365/120, and males and females who must be submissive
24/7/365/120.   I believe a certain amount of balance is a good
thing.
 
The fact is I have a pretty low opinion of males and females
who are "real" Dommes or Doms. 

I think a certain amount of flexiblity in personality is a good
thing.   



My tea kettle and pot are black. What color are yours? Whooo!

D (owner of j).




WhipTheHip -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 11:01:05 AM)

Mad Dog Benji wrote:
> The world might have been a better place had Attila, Hannibal, Ghengis, or Mussolini conquered it. 

I don't think so.   I think there is a big difference between these barbarians
and Napoleon.  The following comes from various Internet sources:

The Napoleonic Code was founded on the premise that, for the first time in history, a purely rational law should be created, free from all past prejudices and deriving its content from “sublimated common sense”; its moral justification was to be found not in ancient custom or monarchical paternalism but in its conformity to the dictates of reason.

The preliminary article of the Code established certain important provisions regarding to the rule of law. Laws could only be applied if they had been duly promulgated, and if they had been published officially (including provisions for publishing delays, given the means of communication available at the time); thus no secret laws were authorized. It prohibited ex post facto laws (i.e. laws that apply to events that occurred before them). It also prohibited judges from refusing justice on grounds of insufficiency of the law — thereby encouraging them to interpret the law. It, however, prohibited judges from passing general judgments of a legislative value.

The first book of the code deals with the law of persons: the enjoyment of civil rights, the protection of personality, domicile, guardianship, tutorship, relations of parents and children, marriage, personal relations of spouses, and the dissolution of marriage by annulment or divorce.

Liberty, Equality and Fraternity Perhaps one of the most important and lasting contributions that Napoleon gave to the French people was the Civil Code or most widely known as the Napoleonic Code. This was written at a time in history when discrimination was rampant. Napoleon decided to liberate and offer Liberty, Equality and Fraternity to the Jews, Protestants, and other religions as well. He also opened the churches that were closed for years.  He promoted freedom of religion.  
"My primary desire was to liberate the Jews and make them full citizens. I wanted to confer upon them all the legal rights of equality, liberty and fraternity as was enjoyed by the Catholics and Protestants. It is my wish that the Jews be treated like brothers as if we were all part of Judaism. As an added benefit, I thought that this would bring to France many riches because the Jews are numerous and they would come in large numbers to our country where they would enjoy more privileges than in any other nation. Without the events of 1814, most of the Jews of Europe would have come to France where equality, fraternity and liberty awaited them and where they can serve the country like everyone else." (Napoleonic Scholarship: The Journal of the International Napoleonic Society, Volume 1, Number 2, December 1998.)  That conversation Napoleon had with his physician alone proved undoubtedly that he actually promoted equality, liberty, and fraternity for France and for everybody.
The Napoleonic Code perhaps is one of the most astounding and significant achievements that Napoleon accomplished. It was through the Code that he promoted and strengthened the ideals of the Revolution. Determined to unify France into a strong modern nation, he pushed for a single set of written laws that applied to everyone. He made it clear, logical, and easily understood by everyone. This new code of laws applied equally to all French citizens regardless of what position they were in the society. It recognized that all men were equal in the eyes of the law. Not only were they equal before the law, but also, they were equal in taxation. Every single citizen had to pay the exact amount of tax that everybody paid. This was another example of equality among the people of France. However, there are always contradictions as to how Napoleon promoted equality among all people.  Equality - 'did Napoleon practice this fully during his reign?' critics might ask. What are the things that Napoleon didn't do in regard to equality? Most people would say that he didn't protect the rights of women. However, during Napoleon's time, man's concept on women was that they should be protected. And one way of protecting them was not to give them too many responsibilities. Government involvement entails many responsibilities. That is why women were kept from getting involved. To them, the women were tailored to be homemakers and as such, should be sheltered from the dangers and problems that they might face if they were in the outside world. If we just dig a little bit deeper, it is not that Napoleon didn't think about women, but it is that he cared about them.
Again, critics ask, 'what about fraternity?' Fraternity is brotherhood among men. They help each other out for the good of one thing - and in Napoleon's case, it was for the good of France. Fraternity was well shown during Napoleon's reign especially in his Grand Armee. These soldiers united together to defend France, to please France, to give glory and magnificence to France. These soldiers didn't have to be in Napoleon's army. They could have been businessmen, lawyers, merchants, and all the rest. They were never forced to join the Armee. As one article in the Napoleonic code says, there is freedom to choose one's work. But what drove these people to be involved in Napoleon's Grand Armee? One of Napoleon's soldiers quoted, "Faithful to our oath, we have not abandoned your eagles, and we are now without a country!... Sire, I beg of you, give us back our weapons..." - Jose Fernando (http://napoleonseries.org, 1995) Yes it was, brotherhood. It was for the love of France. Such brotherhood was what made France a stronger and unified country. What else did make France a stronger nation? It's the brotherhood of the people of France. Everybody's helping out. Everybody's cooperating. Never in Napoleon's reign did the people revolt. They helped each other instead. All of these things happened when Napoleon stepped on the throne.




gooddogbenji -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 11:13:24 AM)

I aint saying he wasn't a good guy, I'm just saying that in 200 years, his ideas could well have been exploited by someone, and turned the masses into blubbering retards only there to please the Great Leader.  Or, Ghengis Khan (Who was actually not that bad of a guy, by his day's standard) could have set the stage for the perfect leader to come along, and personal enlightenment and wealth would have followed.

I'm just saying it's very easy to decide the world could have been better had x happened 200 years ago.

And no, I did not read that long-winded copy-paste job.  I'm familiar with the napoleonic code.

Anyway, I would like to thank you for entertaining me.  God knows the newbies bitching about no replies is wearing thin, so now I have you.  Thank you.

Yours,


benji




juliaoceania -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 11:13:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wandersalone

hmmmm still thinking about Benji and Julia's wonderful mathematical equation about dominates and submits...errrr I mean submissives, since LaTigresse has volunteered her services, and there is Benji and Julia and if I also kind of maybe hope you let me join in also, does that mean we will have world domination or submission or something? (Canada, USA, Australia....maybe we need someone from the UK also)
..... ok back to the 3454587 posts in WTH's thread......


With the help of LaT we can take over the world more handily than Napoleon himself...mwuuuhaaaaaa




gooddogbenji -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 11:15:25 AM)

Yeah, but I say we first have to take out the troublemaking do-gooders.  Would it be bad if we shot them like dogs?

Yours,


benji




juliaoceania -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 11:17:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji

Yeah, but I say we first have to take out the troublemaking do-gooders.  Would it be bad if we shot them like dogs?

Yours,


benji


Howabout like cats?




LaTigresse -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 11:38:40 AM)

I say lets draw and quarter the cads!!! MUAH HA HA HAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and roast them on a spit over a big bonfire............then we can feed them to the dogs!




juliaoceania -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 11:44:59 AM)

LaT, since you are head domme in our evil scheme to take over all of BDSMdom, well I have to say, your idea is an excellent one (prepares the spit and fire...he hee)




LaTigresse -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 11:48:13 AM)

Thank you! I wonder.......shall I make my favourite BBQ sauce.........hmmmmmmmmm

Maybe some potato salad?

Do you think it is safe to make benji in charge of beverages?




popeye1250 -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 11:51:35 AM)

Susan, that's so sad about that unmentionable and their prick of a father.
Whip, as for "mean people" I've had to deal with my share of them in my life and one thing I never do is back down to them.
A lot of them are bullys and you can't back down to them that's what they want.




gooddogbenji -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/2/2006 12:04:34 PM)

I find it interesting that WTH wants to found a religion on tolerance and such, but anyone who will not convert, he wants to banish to a cornfield or so.  Seems like a religion that will be hard to misinterpret.............

Yours,


benji




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.076172E-02