|
TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Beginner Dom (4/4/2005 9:57:20 AM)
|
Here we go again.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Focus50
Taggard:
Now, I challenge you to find a single quote I have attributed to you that would change meaning when more context was given?
2) The "single quote":
Taggard:
"As someone who thinks that there are 6 or 7 doms for every submissive, your value as a meter of demographics is seriously low. Why would anyone listen to what you have to say on how the population of this lifestyle is comprised?"
Ok...let's start here. Nowhere, in the above quote did I ever quote you. It is impossible to "quote out of context" without quoting. Simply on those grounds, you will need to find another example of where I "quoted out of context." What I gave in the above quote is known as a "paraphrase." If you feel I paraphrased you inaacurately, you should say so...simply saying that you were "quoted out of context" does not negate the truth value of my statement.
quote:
3) My reply by completing the sentence or quote in question - thus putting it in proper context:
Focus50:
"If you must quote me from another thread (Bad Submissive), do try to keep it in context.... What I wrote was: "The lifestyle is choked with male doms - maybe 6 or 7 for every fem/sub and that just defies logic and Nature's balance." Now, I'm a logical person who believes in Nature's balance so I think there's *how many Doms* per fem/sub out there.....? Need another hint?"
Hmmm...let's examine this a bit closer. You clearly state, "The lifestyle is choked with male doms." This means you think there are more male doms then is good for the lifestyle, right? How else is that to be interpreted. You next say, "maybe 6 or 7 for every fem/sub." This seems to fit perfectly with your first clause...6 or 7 male doms for every female sub would not be healthy (i.e. "choking") for the lifestyle.
But let's continue. You go on to say "and that just defies logic and Nature's balance." Apparently, we are supposed to believe that this clause is supposed to negate the first two clauses of the sentance...but the English language doesn't work that way. If you had said "but that defies logic and Nature's balance," you might have something to argue, but you didn't. As far as the logic of the statement, people paying more for bottled tap water than unleaded gasoline defies logic, but it happens all the time. And when you start doing crazy shit like capping the "N" of nature, I just tune you out.
You go on to say that you are a "logical person who believes in Nature's balance", but none of that was mentioned in the context of the quote, so it is not relavant.
And for the question "so I think there's *how many Doms* per fem/sub out there.....?" I would have to answer that in two ways, given the revelation at the end of your post. If, like most of the world, the word Dom and dom have the same meaning, one would have to believe you believe (or at least did believe until you were educated on the matter) that there were 6 or 7 male D/doms per sub. There is simply no other way to interpret your statement.
If, however, you think Dom and dom have different meanings, then I have no idea how many male Doms you think there are per female sub. You have provided no evidence as to your thoughts on the matter. However, the only time I mentioned your ratio was in reference to "doms" not "Doms", so my paraphrase is completely justified. You have indeed stated that you believe there are 6 or 7 male doms per female sub in the lifestyle. This number is wildly inaccurate.
quote:
4) Your counter-reply by quoting the whole paragraph:
Taggard:
"Hold on a second, skippy...if you are going to present the context, shouldn't you present all the context???
Here is what you said, in toto:"
Focus50:
The lifestyle is choked with male doms - maybe 6 or 7 for every fem/sub and that just defies logic and Nature's balance. And I'd wager EVERY fem/sub has experienced something similar to what you've described. These doms troll for inexperienced newbies hoping to take advantage of their naivety for their own benefit. As soon as you catch them out, expect to be labelled bad or "not submissive" etc....
5) Summary/response:
I never responded to your counter-reply (at least, I don't think I did but you can check if you want - I'll believe you....)
In any case, I will now!
You accused me of thinking there's 6 or 7 doms for every submissive.
Without the completed sentence, your accusation is incorrect because it's out of context.
Dude...this is the part that really worries me. If you can't even get this concept, I may have to [click] you. Repeating a claim does not make it true.
I accused you of nothing. I paraphrased your post and said you are "someone who thinks that there are 6 or 7 doms for every submissive." Are you taking umbrage with my lack of gender specificity? If you would like me to clarify my post and state, for the record that I think you are someone who thinks that there are 6 or 7 male doms for every females submissive, I will do so. That still shows you to be a lousy source of lifestyle demographics, as, again, that ration is wildly inaccurate.
That said, the heart of the matter is that you think if someone does not provide full context of a quote, it somehow makes that partial quotation (or, in this case a paraphrase) somehow incorrect. This simply is not so. If Joe were to say the following: "I am a slave, and I believe that slavery is freedom." It would not be inaccurate or incorrect to say "Joe said, 'slavery is freedom'". I did not provide the full context of the quote, but it was not quoted out of context, as the meaning of the part I did quote is not changed by my clipping the rest of the quote.
Let's take a closer look at an example of a "quote out of context." A food critic writes up a description of a resturants dessert that reads in full: "The custard tasted like a delicious slice of coconut cream pie that had been left to rot in an elephant's anus for six weeks before being served." Now, the resturant owner does some clipping and proudly boasts: "The food critic said my 'custard tasted like a delicious slice of coconut cream pie'!!!" Did the food critic say that? Yup! But the statement's truth value is negated by the part of the quotation that is missing. As I have clearly shown above, there is nothing in the full context of your quotation (with the exception of specifying genders) that changes the meaning of your statement. My paraphrase stands as valid even in the full context of the quote.
quote:
Now here's the part I can't fathom - please enlighten me....
Just exactly how does the complete paragraph of mine that you quoted prove your original accusation? I argue the completed sentence is my only reference to my perception of dom numbers and is in the context I always meant it to be. The rest is just me relaying to an inexperienced sub the benefit of my experience with trolling doms.... But you say it proves I think there's 6 or 7 doms per sub..... ?
It proves nothing. It does, however, provide context in which it is very hard to believe anything other then you think there are 6 or 7 (male) doms per (female) sub. Let's have a closer look...
quote:
And I'd wager EVERY fem/sub has experienced something similar to what you've described.
Well if "EVER fem/sub has experienced" this those 6 or 7 doms must exist, right? Who else would be contacting them???
quote:
These doms troll for inexperienced newbies hoping to take advantage of their naivety for their own benefit.
What doms??? How else could anyone read this other then thinking you are talking about the 6 or 7 (male) doms per (female) sub. If you were talking about some other doms, how were we supposed to know that??? This sentance, in context, clearly supports the assertion that you think there are 6 or 7 male doms per fem sub, as you talk about them doing things. If you felt the 6 or 7 male doms per female sub were really just an aberation or illusion, how could they do things???
quote:
As soon as you catch them out, expect to be labelled bad or "not submissive" etc....
As soon as you catch who out??? How can that be read as other then refering to the 6 or 7 male doms per female sub? If you can "catch them out" they must be real, even though they defy logic and Nature's balance. All of this supporting my paraphrase of you thinking there are 6 or 7 male doms for each female sub.
quote:
Either your challenge is answered or I look forward to some creative reasoning from you....
Dude, you didn't even present a place where I quoted you, much less quoted out of context.
Again, I repeat my challenge: find one single instance where I have quoted you in a way that presents a different meaning when the context of the quote is added.
quote:
BTW....
You wouldn't know this but it may help, or not. In the way I write, there's a significance in how I write "Dom". It's not a typo when I write it as a noun but without a cap - as "dom" - it's just my way of differentiating between the trolls/wannabes etc and those Doms who appear to have something about them.... My little idiosync.
Yeah...that's great and all. Good luck with that...
Here's a BTW for you...when I (and most other real lifers) talk about the "lifestyle", we mean the 3d, irl, flesh and blood activites of actual human beings. We are not talking about online only activity.
Taggard
|
|
|
|
