|
WhipTheHip -> RE: Pro-Dommes, Prostitution, and sexual burnout. (10/18/2006 7:28:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
You're not a dom or a sub
True.
quote:
yet your profile registration says you are a dom? Then the text of your profile
says you are a "wannabe dom". I'm left puzzled at this distinction
I believe my profile does an adequate job explaining this. I'm a loving
sexual sadist. I do not have the extreme dominant, controling personality
that most doms have, and most subs find attractive. I don't have a need
to control others. If a sub wanted me to be more dominant and controling,
I could do it and would enjoy it, because I am flexible. Moreover, it is my
personal claim, that a Dom without sub is no Dom. It is having a sub that
makes a Dom, a Dom.
> you either are, or youre not surely?
It seems like you enjoy making false dichotomies. This is the
typical doughnut fallacy. Look it up on the Internet if you don't
know what it is.
It is impossible to reason logically and communicate with people who
think like this. The world is not black and white, but filled different
colors, and with shades of grey. There are all different colors and degrees
of dominance. Moreover, a lot of reality is relative. Statements like,
"You are either tall or you are not tall," "You are either fat or you are
not fat," "You are either truthful or you are liar," and "You either lied
or didn't lie" are non-sensical statements. Attorneys in courtrooms
like to use the doughnut fallacy to impugn the credibility of witnesses,
and they often succeed because so many humans can't think logically.
"Either Clinton committed perjury or he didn't." Well, he lied under
oath but didn't commit perjury, because he did not believe his lie
was a material fact. And the crime of perjury requires someone
knowingly lie regarding a fact they believe to be a material fact.
A belt can be both black and white. Subtle distinctions are lost
on many people, and subtle distinctions can often make a world
of difference.
> The phrase "wannabe dom" indicates to me that you dont feel
> you have the self knowledge to know who/what you are and seek,
Maybe, you don't know what or who you are, but I've always known
what and who I am. Just because I am not at one extreme or
the other, just because I am complex and multi-faceted does
not mean I don't know what or who I am. People like me are
beyond the understanding of simpletons who see everything
as either this or that. The universe is much more complex than
you think, and so are human beings.
> let alone knowledge and experience, to know what youre
> talking about?
All I can do is shake my head. If you don't have the intelligence
to attack what people say, then all you can do is attack them
personally. I have considerable knowledge and experience,
but I don't taut them, because knowledge and experience
does't make a person right or wrong. Someone with less
knowledge and experience can be right, and someone with
more experience and knowledge can be wrong. It happens
all the time in science.
> "Know thyself" works as much in this area as in every other.
Blah, blah, blah. You have been reading too many self-help
books. I have always known who I am. Maybe, you still
need to learn who you are.
> This suggestion is sadly backed up by some of the
> opinions you post - not just IMO, but it seems for a lot
> of others too.
Fortunately, truth is not decided by majority rule.
> I dont want to call your involvement in CM into question
LOL. And I don't want to call your intelligence an integrity
into question.
> I dont think youre helping yourself with a lot of the stuff
> you come out with.
I don't think you're helping yourself with a lot of the stuff
you come out with. I think you should run all your posts
by me first. It would be in your best interest. I am only
thinking of you.
> Everyone of course, is entitled to their opinion - but an
> informed and balanced opinion goes down so much better.
I understand now, your opinions are informed, fair and balanced,
and those that have different opinions are uninformed, unfair,
and unbalanced. You could make a lot of money as a FOX
commentator. You and Bill O'Reilly are two peas in pod.
> You feel that those who are slighted, must apologise to
> you for pointing this out, before you apologise for the slight?
Oh my God! You missed the irony in my last response to you.
You said anyone who claims to have been insulted has been
insulted and is owed an apology. I sarcastically said you
insulted me to let you see how ridiculous your claim was. And
you took what I said literially. This is too funny, and too sad.
> So, if I were to go outside now to someone in the street here,
> and call them a "fxxxin' bastard Muslim scumbag", and they
> were insulted and said something offensive back, I should
> expect them to apologize before I do?
That is ***YOUR*** claim, not mine. You said anyone who
claims they were insulted has been insulted and is owed an
apology. I claimed you had just insulted me to prove you wrong.
Are you always this slow on the uptake?
> I'm sure you dont need me to point out how upside down this
> makes the situation?
Then why did you say it?
> Whether you intended to offend or not isnt really the point here
> either. If I accidentally step on someone's toe - should I feel no
> apology is required because I didnt intend it?
If someone from the KKK says you insulted them because you
call them a racist, do you apologize because you figuratively
stepped on his toe. If someone feels insulted because you
called them a Pole and they are a Pole, do you appologize?
Or do you say, calling someone a Pole is not an insult?
> It doesnt do much for your preaching of the new religion to
> which you aspire to truly believe you shouldnt apologize, surely?
I apologize all the time. I don't apologize just because someone
mistakenly thinks I have insulted them.
> Only pride and self/ego is preventing you from doing so,
Right. It couldn't possibly be because I don't see anything for
which an apology is called for by any stretch of the imagination.
What this comes down to, is you want me to accept your opinions
and beliefs, and if I don't accept your opinions and beliefs, I
need to apologize for stepping on your toes.
Listen to yourself. Can't you hear the absurdity in your words.
Suppose I said to you, your beliefs and opinions have offended
and insulted me. Now, please apologize. You are like the
Muslims who demand the cartoonists who drew cartoons of
Muhammed apologize to them. These Muslims felt insulted
by these cartoons. So according to you, these cartoonists
owe them an apology, because anyone who feels insulted is
due an apology. Out of politeness to you, I bite my tongue.
> after all an apology even for an unintended hurt demonstrates
> maturity in the apologiser as well as maintaining good will
> towards him.
Go ahead and apologize to all the Muslims who claim your
beliefs and opinions are an insult to them, then get back to
me. I don't have time for this kind of nonsense.
Cheers,
Michael
|
|
|
|
