The Trouble with Words (Full Version)

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



Message

Leonidas -> The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 4:45:04 AM)

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

-- Lewis Caroll, from Alice in Wonderland

Words are usually used to stand in for discreet things or concepts. They're a kind of shorthand. Many words used in the lifestyle (master, slave, dominant, submissive, sadist, masochist, top, bottom, D/s, M/s, BD, SM etc.) are so overloaded with meaning that they are practically meaningless. As with Humpty Dumpty, they mean just what the speaker intends them to mean, no more, no less. Maybe in a sub-culture where power is one of the favorite toys, nobody wants to let a word have any. Folks want to be what they want to be, and do what they want to do, but call it whatever they want to call it, even if others (or even most others) use the same word to mean something different.

I haven't been around all that long (16 years), but it seems to me that even in that span the definitions and the distinctions that they are intended to draw have grown a lot murkier. When I started out, just as an example, if someone said "He's Lauren's Master" they meant something very different than if they said "He's a Sadist". Today, someone can say "I'm a Master" and they might mean more or less what someone meant back then if they said "I'm a Sadist". You just don't know. You've got to play 20 questions. "Whose Master Are you?" "I'm not anyone's Master, I'm just a Master" "A Master of something then ?" "Yes, I'm very skilled with a single-tail, wax, and floggers" "Ahhhh... OK, gotcha". "I'm a slave" "Nice to meet you, who is your owner?" "My owner? I'm not owned, I'm just a slave" "So, um, you'd like to have an owner then?" "NO! I'M NOT A DOORMAT! I just enjoy it when someone puts me on a leash and makes me behave like a slave and call them master. What's the matter with you anyway?" "My mistake.... thanks for clearing that up".

I'm probably just gettin' old, but I don't like it. I know we're all non-conformists, but do we really need to dom the language to the point of linguistic anarchy? If a word can mean anything, it doesn't really mean anything, if you know what I mean. The value of words as an aid to communication and social interaction vanishes in the haze. This is especially unfortunate in a text-only medium, where I can't see if the man I'm addressing is wearing black leather, boots, and chains, or a cardigan and penny loafers.

I think some folks would say that words, and the distinctions they represent are a bad thing. Nobody should be distinct from anyone else, and so words really should mean what the speaker intends them to mean, no more, no less. The speaker, not the word, should be master, as Humpty Dumpty was saying when he confused the hell out of Alice. What do you all think?






TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 5:20:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas
If a word can mean anything, it doesn't really mean anything, if you know what I mean.



I think this is one of the seven signs of the apocalypse...not that words are losing their meaning, but the fact that I completely and utterly agree with you.

My question is, what can we do about it?

Taggard



Leonidas -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 6:05:09 AM)


quote:

My question is, what can we do about it?


Well, one answer is balkanization. Within my subculture, the meanings of the terms we use are shared, pretty much. If someone decides to redefine a term in common use to suit them, they run into a consensus that that isn't a good idea fairly quickly. It could be that it helps that we have some literature to use as a benchmark.

On a site like this, that intends to cater publically to just about anyone who isn't "vanilla" (or even thinks they aren't), it's harder. You and I argued mightly about definitions on another thread, but really, you're no less entitled to your definition than I am to mine, as long as we understand that we aren't speaking the same language (even though we're both speaking english) because we come from a different base of experience and association.

The only answer that I could offer for a site like this would be for the site itself to publish a glossary. To say, in effect, here is what this term means for the purposes of interaction on this site. Of course, if you made the creation of such a glossary an inclusive community process, the definitions (if any could be agreed to at all) would be so nuanced and contain so many caveats that you'd be back where you started. If the site owners just published a glossary, there would be a hew and cry throughout the land.

Which brings me back to balkanization. Maybe the community that this site intends to serve isn't really a community. Maybe the inability to speak the same "lingo" is symptomatic of over-diversity. Too inclusive. Kind of like opening up the "Black Muslim/Sikh/Southern Baptist" community center. What? Of course it's a community. They're all religious folks, aren't they?



BeachMystress -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 6:13:26 AM)


I very much agree with this. Words have a definition. That definition is constant. When we put our own personal definitions out there as being as valid as the dictionary one, we confuse things to the point where the words are useless. As in your point of one who is a Master, if they mean they are sadistic and a Master, it needs to be stated as a sadistic Master and not just left that "their" definition of Master involves sadism. We are getting very politically correct with BDSM. Everyone's fetish is OK.. Everyone's definition is OK. I agree that within the bounds of consensuality and legality, everyone has a right to their fetish. I do not have to find it OK. I have to leave them alone to practice it. In the case of everyone's definition is OK, I do not agree. It is sheer laziness on the parts of said parties. They don't want to figure out how to describe themselves, so they cover themselves with a blanket statement. While I understand that people resist labels and really have a hard time figuring out who they are and where they fit in the scene, it is part of self realization.

Language has power when used properly. Used improperly, it is a joke. What we can do about it is to stop parroting that everything is OK. We are allowed to voice our opinion that we feel that the dictionary definition or the "standard" definition is the one that counts. You do not see this problem of "standard" terms meaning whatever the user wants it to mean anywhere else.



mistoferin -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 6:53:10 AM)

quote:

I haven't been around all that long (16 years), but it seems to me that even in that span the definitions and the distinctions that they are intended to draw have grown a lot murkier.


quote:

I'm probably just gettin' old, but I don't like it. I know we're all non-conformists, but do we really need to dom the language to the point of linguistic anarchy? If a word can mean anything, it doesn't really mean anything, if you know what I mean. The value of words as an aid to communication and social interaction vanishes in the haze.


It seems to me that I just posted this same sentiment in another thread, different words yes, but the sentiment was the same. Frustration over words like Master that have lost meaning to the point where anyone can proclaim themselves to be one, and yet not apply any of the principles that you have commonly come to associate with the word. I will be interested to see the reception yours gets.



ProtagonistLily -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 7:11:25 AM)

quote:

Lionidas said:
<SNIP>I haven't been around all that long (16 years), but it seems to me that even in that span the definitions and the distinctions that they are intended to draw have grown a lot murkier. When I started out, just as an example, if someone said "He's Lauren's Master" they meant something very different than if they said "He's a Sadist". Today, someone can say "I'm a Master" and they might mean more or less what someone meant back then if they said "I'm a Sadist". You just don't know. You've got to play 20 questions. "Whose Master Are you?" "I'm not anyone's Master, I'm just a Master" "A Master of something then ?" "Yes, I'm very skilled with a single-tail, wax, and floggers" "Ahhhh... OK, gotcha". "I'm a slave" "Nice to meet you, who is your owner?" "My owner? I'm not owned, I'm just a slave" "So, um, you'd like to have an owner then?" "NO! I'M NOT A DOORMAT! I just enjoy it when someone puts me on a leash and makes me behave like a slave and call them master. What's the matter with you anyway?" "My mistake.... thanks for clearing that up".


I totally agree here. I've not been around 16 years, but I too have found the above to have migrated from a more tightly structured set of definitions to more broadly structured meanings, which I too have found myself uncomfortable with.

To me, you can't use the term Master the way you use the term Dentist. Master as a concept certainly implies that a man is Dominant and that he practices the D/s component of the ever popular BDSM. However, unlike Dentist, which isn't a concept but a factual representation of a certain studied curriculum, there is no universally accepted measurement in our sub-culture (no pun, really) for what qualifies someone to use the title "Master".

In the world of WIIWD, I suppose anyone can call themselves anything and get away with it. I have found, through my own experiences in the scene, there seems to be this idea that because we are 'kinky' we should be hyper accepting of individuals by way of definition. Frankly, (note, YMMV on this next statement) I don't think ease of use with regard to BDSM has necessarily made the scene better, though I do think it's made things a bit more dilute. We have lost a sense of protocol, of structure, because of the influx of so many who seem to believe that how one role plays in a chat room can translate into the real life scene. I find it frustrating at times.

What I have found is that often times, people will use terms they have no business using, like those you mentioned above, because they lack the self confidence, personal knowledge, or are simply insecure in their 'chosen' role. I say this because I believe that sometimes when people learn about BDSM through chat rooms, they have a conversation with themselves that goes something like this: "Hey, this is cool, I'm bound to get laid more with all the sluts around. I'll be a Master and woo hoo...more layage." Now, I don't mean to make fun of someone who finds their legitimate role in BDSM through online RP; but there is a dilution of thought when people show up and try to manipulate the underlying norms that are present in our particular culture because they don't really deeply identify with WIIWD other than to get more sex. I think, more than anything, this is where the murkieness of language regarding these titles comes from.
quote:

I'm probably just gettin' old, but I don't like it. I know we're all non-conformists, but do we really need to dom the language to the point of linguistic anarchy? If a word can mean anything, it doesn't really mean anything, if you know what I mean. The value of words as an aid to communication and social interaction vanishes in the haze. This is especially unfortunate in a text-only medium, where I can't see if the man I'm addressing is wearing black leather, boots, and chains, or a cardigan and penny loafers.


I agree with you on this, but I think that 'we' (those of us who did not do the chat room route, etc.) have to take some responsibility for where the language has drifted as well. My experience has been that folks who had muddied the terms have simply worn many of us down. I frankly don't want to have an argument with someone with very little experience time after time as to why calling themselves a Master when in fact they A) don't have someone in a collar, B) aren't interested in 'owning' someone C) are just here to Top and get laid and D) anything else they can come up with does not jive with what's been somewhat codified by the 'literature' (i.e. Screw The Roses, Differant Loving, etc.) I think part of the problem is that we've simply been worn down by individual's needs to Title themselves in order to legitimize themselves.

quote:

I think some folks would say that words, and the distinctions they represent are a bad thing. Nobody should be distinct from anyone else, and so words really should mean what the speaker intends them to mean, no more, no less. The speaker, not the word, should be master, as Humpty Dumpty was saying when he confused the hell out of Alice. What do you all think?


Well, Lionidas, I can call myself Madonna, but that doesn't mean I can sing.

Lily



NoPinkBalloons -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 7:22:42 AM)

When we take words that are already in common usage and assign them new meanings and uses what you're talking about is bound to happen. Take "a submissive" for example. No where in the dictionaries I've checked is "submissive" a noun. It's an adjective. So, if you're making up new meanings for words is it any wonder that these new meanings aren't standard?

Also, may words have multiple meanings. Take "master" for example. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines it like this:

mas·ter n.
1. One that has control over another or others.
2.
1. The owner or keeper of an animal: The dog ran toward its master.
2. The owner of a slave.
3. One who has control over or ownership of something: the master of a large tea plantation.
4. The captain of a merchant ship. Also called master mariner.
5. An employer.
6. The man who serves as the head of a household.
7. One who defeats another; a victor.
8.
1. One whose teachings or doctrines are accepted by followers.
2. Master Christianity. Jesus.
9. A male teacher, schoolmaster, or tutor.
10. One who holds a master's degree.
11.
1. An artist or performer of great and exemplary skill.
2. An old master.
12. A worker qualified to teach apprentices and carry on the craft independently.
13. An expert: a master of three languages.
14. Abbr. M.
1. Used formerly as a title for a man holding a naval office ranking next below a lieutenant on a warship.
2. Used as a title for a man who serves as the head or presiding officer of certain societies, clubs, orders, or institutions.
3. Chiefly British. Used as a title for any of various male law court officers.
4. Master Used as a title for any of various male officers having specified duties concerning the management of the British royal household.
5. Master Used as a courtesy title before the given or full name of a boy not considered old enough to be addressed as Mister.
6. Archaic. Used as a form of address for a man; mister.
15. Master A man who owns a pack of hounds or is the chief officer of a hunt.
16. An original, such as an original document or audio recording, from which copies can be made.


adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a master.
2. Principal or predominant: a master plot.
3. Controlling all other parts of a mechanism: a master switch.
4. Highly skilled or proficient: a master thief.
5. Being an original from which copies are made.


tr.v. mas·tered, mas·ter·ing, mas·ters

1. To act as or be the master of.
2. To make oneself a master of: mastered the language in a year's study.
3. To overcome or defeat: He finally mastered his addiction to drugs.
4. To reduce to subjugation; break or tame (an animal, for example).
5. To produce a master audio recording for.
6. To season or age (dyed goods).

Because there are so many ways to use the same word, it doesn't surprise me that people will misunderstand what someone means when they use it at times.

Then the are the colloquilisms and local meanings to take into account as well. How we use words is often influenced by where we learned the language, when we learned it, and whether or not it's a "native" language or something learned later in life.

Our language is a living language, and as such meanings are constantly being changed and added to words already in common usage. That's why dictionaries have to be updated so often, and are never really completely up to date. It's frustrating, but that's something we have to deal with.

Way back when, wiitwd was pretty much all referred to as SM. D/s wasn't terminology that I heard until relatively recently, yet it's come to be the default for anyone who does wiitwd. I'm used to it ALL being SM, whether it was physical or mental or a combination of both.

Way back when, I never heard anyone (or anyone of any import at least) say "I'm a master". People didn't bestow titles on themselves that way in my little corner of the world. It may have been different in other places.

We used to label ourselves as "tops" or "bottoms" mostly, and they were umbrella terms that encompassed a wide variety of orientations. These days when people use those words they generally mean "sadist" and "masochist", but I still understand them to mean sadist/binder/dominant/daddy/etc and masochist/someone who likes to get tied up/submissive/little in an age play dynamic/etc.

Lifestyle was a term that wasn't used by anyone who actually *did* wiitwd. Rather, it was a word thrown around by those who did nothing more than talk about it and dream about it. These days, though, it's commonly used by people who actually do what they're talking about.

Player used to be a compliment - it meant you actually DID wiitwd. These days people use it in a pejorative sense.

I could give dozens more examples, but I suppose people get my point by now. Language is constantly changing, in our subculture as well as in the world around us.

We use words as shortcuts to communicate concepts, but the language itself is often imprecise. I always feel that it's the responsibility of the person trying to communicate to make sure that the concept s/he is trying to get across is understood. So, if there seems to be a disconnect when you're trying to communicate with someone, take the time to define how YOU use the words. Don't expect everyone to have had the same background you did and to have therefore come to the same place with the definitions that you have.



Hickory -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 7:50:30 AM)

¡Aye carumba!

This is an excellent topic, with great responses. As someone stumbling through this “thing”, I have also felt considerable confusion about who does what to whom and how to address different persons, events and activities within the context of this community. “One man’s fish is another’s poisson”, as they say.

I have found a few glossaries on different sites, most of which pretty much agree on terms and usage. In this "click and stick" environment, though, (the Internet) there is so much based on the illusion of self that many choose to define themselves under their own terms, a sort of “self communication”. Besides, all language is a fluid and ever-changing entity, so any definition is completely contextual, and can vary widely from one context to another.

  • Artificial originally meant “beautiful”
  • Cute originally meant “bow legged”
  • My kids have barely a clue as to where “groovy” comes from or why I insist on “dialing the phone”. (How many know what an “ameche” is? – careful, admitting it automatically disqualifies you from TNG, which I first though had to do with Star Trek!)

I call myself a “switch” because I may well be (moving into this lifestyle will certainly be a switch for me), but also because “Hickory Switch” is more amusing to me than “Hickory Sub”, which sounds more like a sandwich. As I am not looking for anything that requires a consensual definition of “switch”, it doesn’t really matter. If I was looking to scene, though, it would be incumbent upon me to clarify my interests, limits, expectations, etc., to the satisfaction of the other party(ies) involved.

I do agree that there is a carelessness to the use of many terms all through our “artificial” English language. A focus on self communication can often cloud the actual intent, when another person interprets it.

C’est la guerre!

Hickory



Moleculor -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 7:56:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

It seems to me that I just posted this same sentiment in another thread, different words yes, but the sentiment was the same. Frustration over words like Master that have lost meaning to the point where anyone can proclaim themselves to be one, and yet not apply any of the principles that you have commonly come to associate with the word. I will be interested to see the reception yours gets.


However, you were doing precisely one of the things that the OP was complaining about: Attempting to fit "dominant" and "submissive" into the "100% control" definition, and as you saw a large number of people disagreed with you. However (and let me just use that line you were so fond of:), you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.

As for the OP, yahr, sure, you betcha words are gonna be confusing. Context helps negate that a bit, but you might as well try and get people to agree on religion, eh?



kyakitten -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 8:07:42 AM)


quote:


Well, Lionidas, I can call myself Madonna, but that doesn't mean I can sing.

Lily


LOL, Doesn't mean Madonna can either!



onceburned -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 8:27:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hickory
Besides, all language is a fluid and ever-changing entity, so any definition is completely contextual, and can vary widely from one context to another.


Meanings are contextual yes and ever-changing but I worry a bit about the fluidity description. The meanings of words have some solidity of meaning from the background context of our culture and subculture. If we were to scoop up a word's meaning it would not flee from our hands like mercury.

Perhaps meaning is more like a glacier, shaped by the contours of its valley but flowing and constantly forming fissures (gaps of understanding) and pressure ridges. Yes the glacier is melting but it is constantly being renewed by the accumulation of new snowfalls (experiences/perceptions). Meanings are basically solid - and can be recognized and agreed upon.

So what does this all mean? We probably can not alter our culture or subculture (the contours of the valley) but I thinkwe can direct how new experiences are perceived. If we as a community don't assume control of what words are attached to which experiences then we will give up our opportunity to exert what control we have on the glacier (the meanings of words).

JMO [:)]



slavedesires -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 8:32:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas
Words are usually used to stand in for discreet things or concepts. They're a kind of shorthand. Many words used in the lifestyle (master, slave, dominant, submissive, sadist, masochist, top, bottom, D/s, M/s, BD, SM etc.) are so overloaded with meaning that they are practically meaningless. As with Humpty Dumpty, they mean just what the speaker intends them to mean, no more, no less. Maybe in a sub-culture where power is one of the favorite toys, nobody wants to let a word have any. Folks want to be what they want to be, and do what they want to do, but call it whatever they want to call it, even if others (or even most others) use the same word to mean something different.

I haven't been around all that long (16 years), but it seems to me that even in that span the definitions and the distinctions that they are intended to draw have grown a lot murkier. When I started out,

"My mistake.... thanks for clearing that up".

Nobody should be distinct from anyone else, and so words really should mean what the speaker intends them to mean, no more, no less. The speaker, not the word, should be master, as Humpty Dumpty was saying when he confused the hell out of Alice. What do you all think?



i believe your words mean you have been within this lifestyle for 16 years, not been around for 16 years, otherwise you will only 16 years old, correct?

Sometimes words NEED clarification.

Should each of us not take responsibility for the words we each use?
Speaking so well that we mean what we say when we either type or speak words?
i for one, am still learning the power of words . . . and i am afraid that it will take a lifetime of learning for unlearning old habits and rebuilding new habits is a process of not only trial and error but also of failure and success. *sigh . . . but i will not give up.

"Nobody should be distinct from anyone else". . . the operative words are "should be," correct?
i believe everyone SHOULD be distinct.
i personally have been doing alot of thinking about the distinctions in who i am from any other sub or slave. It is within this context of distinction that i define myself as a person and the gift to others of who i am, not only in everyday life but also within this lifestyle.

Who is master? The word or the person speaking that particular word/words?

On the otherhand, maybe this post was about masters and not words and the ability to communicate well with those words.

What do you think?

shy



RiotGirl -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 8:40:52 AM)

Access Denied



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 8:41:00 AM)

Language flows...it's like a river, you can't dam it up and expect it to stop moving.

Lingual "purists" have been outraged for centuries over this fact. I get off on the debates.



slavedesires -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 8:45:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

The only answer that I could offer for a site like this would be for the site itself to publish a glossary. To say, in effect, here is what this term means for the purposes of interaction on this site. Of course, if you made the creation of such a glossary an inclusive community process, the definitions (if any could be agreed to at all) would be so nuanced and contain so many caveats that you'd be back where you started. If the site owners just published a glossary, there would be a hew and cry throughout the land.

Which brings me back to balkanization. Maybe the community that this site intends to serve isn't really a community. Maybe the inability to speak the same "lingo" is symptomatic of over-diversity. Too inclusive. Kind of like opening up the "Black Muslim/Sikh/Southern Baptist" community center. What? Of course it's a community. They're all religious folks, aren't they?



i do not know if the site exists any longer, because they went into an overhaul of sorts about Dec 2004, but Scenetalk.Net attempted to do just this, set forth a glossary of termonology within lifestyle of the meaning of words used by those in lifestyle.

The site was based out of the midwest (Chicago community) with some really big names in the "industry" helping out, like Rinnela and Toushin.

i wonder if this could really be done?
i would hate to think that someone could reduce the type of sub/slave i am to mer definitions, because i really pray to God, that who i am defies standardized dictionary/glossary definiton.

shy



RiotGirl -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 8:46:00 AM)

Access Denied



newflowers -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 8:59:09 AM)

As mentioned earlier, words have power. When the meaning of a word is situational, the power and significance of the word is diluted. Compared to others, I am a relative newcomer, however, I have found that it is not that difficult to read books that are accepted as canon and learn the language and history.

Frequently, I hear and read people talk about "the community." Yet this issues brings into question whether there is a community. If there is no common language, no way to communicate in which the members of the of the community can understand each other on even the most basic terms, and if there is no concensus on the denotative meaning of basic terms, then we speak at cross purposes. If the definition of words is so subjective that a word can mean whatever the speaker (or writer) wants it to mean, then with whom do we communication?

newflowers



Hickory -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 9:02:55 AM)

Onceburned:

Excellent analogy! (I like the river one, too, EmeraldSlave2) I understood it, in all of its intricacies, without a moment’s hesitation. Glaciers are fluid. So is glass, iron, or almost any other substance at any temperature greater than “absolute zero”. I like the glacier analogy especially in the context of “global warming”, where the actions of an integrated global “community” is constantly accelerating the pace of change. What seemed “constant” for a generation or more may now have a life of only a few years before the melting and freezing cycle change them dramatically from their “former selves”.

As to a comprehensive “glossary”, those can be scary. In the geek world, “The Powers” have been trying for years to define a common “language” for HTML code. Between giants, usurpers, pirates and a radical fringe, its history reads like a science fantasy tome. “He who controls the language, controls all.” (not mine, but this thread is too quick to look it up)<EDIT> - Josef Stalin, who also said, "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas." </EDIT>



(RG – did you mean that ES2’s statement was incomplete, or were you asking a poorly punctuated question?[;)])



ScooterTrash -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 9:15:50 AM)

I agree..perhaps we complicate things by trying to over-analyse, such as the age old discussion of slave vs sub as far as meanings. Obviously we have a grey area that limits us from true definitions of certain words, shame really, as we are trying to convey our thoughts in the best manner we have and it still gets watered down. I don't know if there is a solution, as we are stuck with using many of the terms already in existence for our own use in the lifestyle. Perhaps if we would simply go back to basics and quit trying to have a word have multiple meanings, we would do better. But alas, that wouldn't be as fun, would it.



slavedesires -> RE: The Trouble with Words (2/27/2005 10:01:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moleculor

However (and let me just use that line you were so fond of:), you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.



May i respectfully ask,
if someone states their OPINION well and takes responsibility for their own opinion when is it ever wrong?

A person states an opinion based on experience, education, thought processes that cause that particular person to form that particular opinion ...does this then mean that person's experience, education and thought processess are intrinsically wrong because another does NOT like the opinion?

In my mind, a person's opinions are theirs and not right or wrong but merely theirs.
But anyone is free to disagree with the opinion, but not to judge that it is wrong.

What do you think of that?

shy




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.882813E-02