welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2014-03-26: Sexy Pain
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Felgraf



Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Posts: 730

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geareye wrote:
I am always confused when someone says they were playing devil's advocate. It makes no sense to me. Playing devil's advocate, as I understand it, means you're defending an opinion that you don't actually accept on a personal level and find at least a bit questionable (hence devil).

Buuuuuut.......does the person playing d.a. personally disagree with this opinion? If yes, said person must have a reason, a counter argument to said opinion in order to disagree with it (unless said person is a moron....). But if he/she disagrees with it and is aware of the counter-argument why is he/she defending it? Merely to ''test'' other discussion-participants on whether or not they can figure out the counter argument? What a shitty way to waste people's time...*

If said person genuinely can't find a counter-argument and therefore doesn't disagree with the opinion....then why the ''devil''? Why claim the opinion is morally questionable if you can pinpoint why it's mistaken?

Honestly, playing devil's advocate behind people's back is a decent (if you're good at it) attempt at trolling (see *), but to come out and say "I'm playing devil's advocate" doesn't make any sense to me...unless I'm missing something.


It is to test the strength of an argument,and an attempt to stop groupthink. ("Let us see if I can poke holes in what we all agree on, for if we wish to bring this to other people who DO disagree with us, surely they shall try to do the same").

Generally, you would announce this *first*.

And I've actually done it*with myself*. ... That is, I have come up with a position in my head, and then tried to attack that position from the other side to look for flaws in my thinking or thought process...

Buuuttt I am a physics grad student, which by definition means I am a weeee bit cracked mentally.

Though I also see this has already been covered!
_________________
"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
Rune wrote:
I'm not sure how much more there actually is to say on this particular train of thought, or how much value there would even be in going back through the past five pages or so to find a thread to pick up again. Most of it was spiraling irrelevancy perpetuated by a vicious cycle of OK-S trying to defend himself from objections to the bad-and/or-irrelevant supportive arguments he made to defend himself from objections to the last set of bad-and/or-irrelevant supportive arguments he made.


Again, it's very easy to dismiss the arguments and positions taken by someone when you're not giving honest examples of them and you have a reasonable expectation that no one will go back and check to see if you were telling the truth in your characterisation.


This is bullshit. You're calling me lazy and dishonest in the exact same thread that contains the exact material necessary to check my claims against?

A) If you don't think that anyone cares enough to go back those few pages in this very thread, why do you give a shit what they think of you anyway?

B) If I'm so dishonest, who the hell cares if I give examples anyway? People would still have to go back to check their veracity if I'm so fucking dishonest. Sounds like a wasted step.

C) I'm pretty confident that anyone who does go back will see what I mean, because the examples are all right freaking there. So really, it's a demonstration of my own confidence in the veracity of my own claim, rather than dishonesty, because the evidence is RIGHT FREAKING THERE.

D) Many of the other participants in this conversation have been participating the whole time, and were there when it happened anyway.

E) I've already spent more time than you've been worth pointing out what is wrong with your arguments. I don't owe you any more.

F) You have just, here and now, actually provided yet another example of exactly what I was talking about in my last criticism, and I have a reasonable expectation that you will continue to offer examples for all the rest, so pulling up past ones again would be rather unnecessarily redundant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Early on, OklahomanSun suggested that people with certain triggers should retire from civilization, which was offensively callous. That was a complete dick move on his part, and the zeal in calling that out is part of why I love the forum.

In addition, to the degree that people have been arguing with OklahomanSun about the separation between legality and morality, they have been perfectly in the right. He was definitely using legalistic arguments in a conversation about morality. He did this even after acknowledging that the two were separate. I have no beef with those arguments.

I think almost everything else in the dogpile has been bullshit, though.

He's made it very clear, multiple times, that he agrees there is a moral pressure to not speak publicly in ways that trigger people. He's argued that there is also a conflicting moral pressure to avoid censoring public discourse in ways that can cause even more harm, either by marginalizing groups for whom the topic is important, or by failure to inform people about important topics.

I certainly agree that both pressures exist. Several people in the thread have agreed that both pressures exist. There is plenty of room to discuss how those pressures interact on a given issue.

Instead, nearly everyone is pretending he hasn't agreed that there is moral reason to be careful about one says. Instead, there have been five pages of mocking and insults and strawmen and complaints that his posts have been too long. No one owes polite discourse to anyone else - I've certainly been plenty rude to plenty of newcomers, myself - but I think this thread has been pretty over-the-top absurd.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not his overt statements of stance that have driven me over the wall on this one. Most of the supporting arguments that he's used in order to support his opinions have carried deeply harmful implications when they haven't been self-contradictory or just plain illogical. Starting things off on a heinously bad foot with the cabin comment didn't exactly buy a lot of patience for the rest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Istancow



Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1103
Location: Hel

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's take a brief respite to look at this picture of Flower Fruit Mountain.



And here's a piece on the Guzheng to go with it.
_________________
Greetings, fool mortals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10559
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
Early on, OklahomanSun suggested that people with certain triggers should retire from civilization, which was offensively callous. That was a complete dick move on his part, and the zeal in calling that out is part of why I love the forum.

In addition, to the degree that people have been arguing with OklahomanSun about the separation between legality and morality, they have been perfectly in the right. He was definitely using legalistic arguments in a conversation about morality. He did this even after acknowledging that the two were separate. I have no beef with those arguments.

I think almost everything else in the dogpile has been bullshit, though.

He's made it very clear, multiple times, that he agrees there is a moral pressure to not speak publicly in ways that trigger people. He's argued that there is also a conflicting moral pressure to avoid censoring public discourse in ways that can cause even more harm, either by marginalizing groups for whom the topic is important, or by failure to inform people about important topics.

I certainly agree that both pressures exist. Several people in the thread have agreed that both pressures exist. There is plenty of room to discuss how those pressures interact on a given issue.

Instead, nearly everyone is pretending he hasn't agreed that there is moral reason to be careful about one says. Instead, there have been five pages of mocking and insults and strawmen and complaints that his posts have been too long. No one owes polite discourse to anyone else - I've certainly been plenty rude to plenty of newcomers, myself - but I think this thread has been pretty over-the-top absurd.


I kinda think it really went south after this exchange:

Darqcyde wrote:
Geareye wrote:
Darqcyde wrote:

If you utilize empathy, all of your questions are moot.


I'm not asking how you'd personally act, I ask if you think it is morally acceptable for people to act selfishly and even without empathy and interest for others when it comes to how they'll handle their own bodies.


Everyone should utilize empathy, it's just that simple. By your rationale, if I like using my body to swing a metal baseball bat around willy nilly, then it's other people's problem if they happen to enter the radius of my swing. I like swinging my bat around and by golly, why should I care if you lose a few teeth.


I was trying to get across the idea that when considering whether or not one's actions will hurt another that the harm caused by either words or actions should be treated the same.

Sojobo, if you can understand the point I'm trying to make and can get it across better, then by all means, please do so. I consider you a better arguer and logician than myself.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10793
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
I will clarify my devil's advocate claim, however. In the beginning, I was not playing the devil's advocate. When I jumped into the thread, it seemed to me that people were suggesting that BDSM conversation should be carefully scrutinised situationally so that no one was given a trigger. I was and still am very against that.

Since one of your first posts on this forum was pointing out how often logical fallacies are thrown around, usually incorrectly, I have trouble believing you were unaware of the frequency with which people making either awful or irrational arguments fall back on pretending to be a devil's advocate in an attempt to save face. It's unfortunate, because as someone who loves both science and philosophy it's always seemed to me that the devil's advocate was the scientist in the room trying to prove the null hypothesis (unexpected given it's origins, too). C'est la vie, the internet loves good ideas to death.

Anyway, I'd avoid the term entirely (sadly) unless you use it explicitly while making those arguments in order to avoid looking like you're backpedaling. That's just friendly advice, though.

Quote:
I've been taught that there is always a conflict between legality and morality in our society. The moral position is always trying to extend the legal position to cover their beliefs, and the legal position is trying to keep the two separate. They rubber band back and forth.

It was my intent in the conversation to take the legal position. A lot of people have tried to say "well yes, legally it's acceptable, but morally it isn't." Perhaps that's true. I would say that there's moral ambiguity here.

Right. Multiple people have repeatedly pointed out the moral ambiguity of the issue, including me, in response to your clinging to legal arguments that I don't find particularly relevant. If we all agree that talking about your sex life is legal (which we should, because it is), what have we accomplished? What has been illuminated? Nothing that I can see. We haven't advanced the argument about whether it's right to talk (or not talk) in any way. Since the question of self-censoring to avoid triggering victims of abuse is not in any way a legal question, it seems like making a big deal about it being legal was to avoid discussing the squishy moral bits. Even here, you simply say the morals are ambiguous. Unfortunately, that's the point of the discussion, to discuss differences in navigating that ambiguity.

This is actually my third reply to you. The first two were ignored. Possibly because they were rational arguments and didn't call you names. Possibly because you're deluged with arguments. I guess we'll see if the third time is the charm.

Quote:
Perhaps the BDSM person would like the right to talk about their kink as openly as others talk about their love lives. It would be hard to argue that vanilla sex is not clearly displayed in tv and movies and in books, definitely more than BDSM.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence, not because it's unclear, but because people who enjoy vanilla sex censor themselves all the time when they're in a context or surrounded by an audience for which the topic is inappropriate. So... this seems like a pretty simple (and easier said than done) guideline for people regardless of their practices.

Quote:
I think if someone were to go back and read my posts, they'd disagree with the people who claim I've made no points in my comments. I've tried to make the point that certain things like war, which is often sanitised in the news and in discussion to avoid triggers, may be doing a great disservice in that we don't see the reality of what's going on. I've tried to discuss how morality isn't as clear as some people indicated, that there are people that get hurt on both sides of a scale, that whether speech is legal or not is as important as whether speech is moral or not. I've tried to indicate that there are societal protections for the people who have immoral speech inflicted on them.

This sounds more impressive in your recap than it appeared when you were making these arguments originally. You made a slippery slope argument that asking people who enjoy BDSM to consider their audience could lead to them being shunned and their sex lives becoming taboo again, but you didn't offer any evidence of why we should believe this will happen, especially when it seems to me that we're talking about sex more often and more openly now than in the past. An argument without evidence is just an opinion.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I previously accepted that people on both sides of this quandary may be harmed. That's what makes it a difficult moral question. If only one side were harmed the answer would be bleedingly obvious. The question isn't whether, it's how much, and whether or not we have an obligation to avoid inflicting harm. I haven't seen you address those outside of the legal position.

Since the level of "immoral speech" involved in a person discussing their sex life is incredibly low (indeed, discussing your sex life on its own isn't immoral at all), I still don't see where discussing legal protections from harmful speech has helped illuminate this discussion at all. No one is advocating suing kinky people. Again, the legal standard is so remote from where most of these situations take place as to be irrelevant.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3316

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing where people can make the claim that an inability to discuss their sex life in detail wherever and whenever they want where strangers get to be exposed edit: without social censure to it actually constitutes "harm".

Yes people could make that claim but I'd kind of like to see a little more backing that claim up than just treating it as statement of fact. As dogen pointed out, people with vanilla sex lives self censor their discussion of it all the damned time even in far less sexually repressed places than the U.S. out of common courtesy.

None of which addresses the actual comic which spawns the discussion where executioner guy (who has been portrayed a lot more as the gor'an biotruths style BDSM guy in the past anyway) irresponsibly pushes his kink on someone who told him no already.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10793
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Harm" is kind of a squishy term; I've been using it to mean the entire continuum from, "I can't talk about getting spanked here Sad" through "kill it with fire!" I was mainly trying to acknowledge that there is a certain pressure not to do things (like talking about your new ball gag) that may be uncomfortable for those feeling the pressure, without pretending to know exactly what it's like.

But, it does seem central to either argument to define exactly in what way each side is harmed or potentially harmed, in order to compare them. That's what a good utilitarian would do.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you belittle those who have triggers and/or disorders, then whatever else you have to say on the subject of how respectful people should beof boundaries is totally useless.

I vote Samsally, Rune, Shadow cell, Monkey for best performance, with a special award for best mountain-themed interruption for Istancow.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Sojobo wrote:
Early on, OklahomanSun suggested that people with certain triggers should retire from civilization, which was offensively callous. That was a complete dick move on his part, and the zeal in calling that out is part of why I love the forum.

In addition, to the degree that people have been arguing with OklahomanSun about the separation between legality and morality, they have been perfectly in the right. He was definitely using legalistic arguments in a conversation about morality. He did this even after acknowledging that the two were separate. I have no beef with those arguments.

I think almost everything else in the dogpile has been bullshit, though.

He's made it very clear, multiple times, that he agrees there is a moral pressure to not speak publicly in ways that trigger people. He's argued that there is also a conflicting moral pressure to avoid censoring public discourse in ways that can cause even more harm, either by marginalizing groups for whom the topic is important, or by failure to inform people about important topics.

I certainly agree that both pressures exist. Several people in the thread have agreed that both pressures exist. There is plenty of room to discuss how those pressures interact on a given issue.

Instead, nearly everyone is pretending he hasn't agreed that there is moral reason to be careful about one says. Instead, there have been five pages of mocking and insults and strawmen and complaints that his posts have been too long. No one owes polite discourse to anyone else - I've certainly been plenty rude to plenty of newcomers, myself - but I think this thread has been pretty over-the-top absurd.


I kinda think it really went south after this exchange:

Darqcyde wrote:
Geareye wrote:
Darqcyde wrote:

If you utilize empathy, all of your questions are moot.


I'm not asking how you'd personally act, I ask if you think it is morally acceptable for people to act selfishly and even without empathy and interest for others when it comes to how they'll handle their own bodies.


Everyone should utilize empathy, it's just that simple. By your rationale, if I like using my body to swing a metal baseball bat around willy nilly, then it's other people's problem if they happen to enter the radius of my swing. I like swinging my bat around and by golly, why should I care if you lose a few teeth.


I was trying to get across the idea that when considering whether or not one's actions will hurt another that the harm caused by either words or actions should be treated the same.

Sojobo, if you can understand the point I'm trying to make and can get it across better, then by all means, please do so. I consider you a better arguer and logician than myself.
\

I think at this point we may be better off assuming that everyone has understood each other's positions and accepted them to the level they're going to. The last page or two have not really been about introducing new elements to the discussion, just references to the previous pages being incorrect/irrelevent/incongruous to the topic.

It might be productive to assume the thread is done and move on. I don't think we're going to agree with each other on this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
If you belittle those who have triggers and/or disorders, then whatever else you have to say on the subject of how respectful people should beof boundaries is totally useless.

I vote Samsally, Rune, Shadow cell, Monkey for best performance, with a special award for best mountain-themed interruption for Istancow.



There are people who say things I don't like in this world.

That doesn't mean I pretend nothing they say is correct.


There have been people here who insist that insulting me doesn't invalidate their points, so how is it that my comment somehow invalidates what I said?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geareye



Joined: 21 Mar 2013
Posts: 281

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:

Yes people could make that claim but I'd kind of like to see a little more backing that claim up than just treating it as statement of fact.


What sort of backing would you want? What sort of backing could even exist? If they claim they feel bad/hurt because of it, you can of course assume they're lying, but as far as backing goes...what do you want? A brain-wave test or something?

To be clear, I agree with your edit, people should be able to express their disapproval to kinksters, if they feel bad because of something they hear them say, but as far as whether the claim that this expression of disapproval or the need/obligation to censor themselves to avoid said expression of disapproval causes emotional/psychological harm/hurt to them is legitimate or not.....what would you want as proof that this is a legitimate claim?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3316

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geareye wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:

Yes people could make that claim but I'd kind of like to see a little more backing that claim up than just treating it as statement of fact.


What sort of backing would you want? What sort of backing could even exist? If they claim they feel bad/hurt because of it, you can of course assume they're lying, but as far as backing goes...what do you want? A brain-wave test or something?

To be clear, I agree with your edit, people should be able to express their disapproval to kinksters, if they feel bad because of something they hear them say, but as far as whether the claim that this expression of disapproval or the need/obligation to censor themselves to avoid said expression of disapproval causes emotional/psychological harm/hurt to them is legitimate or not.....what would you want as proof that this is a legitimate claim?



Some sort of documented symptoms of legitimate psychological trauma? Something that could at the very least be decently correlated to the inability to discuss ones sex life in public where one could be overheard?

There's a pretty vast gap between suffering actual psychological harm and being salty because you cant run your mouth about your sex life in public. People who've suffered actual psychological harm (which are the people samsally was talking about in the first place) have symptoms which range from panic attacks to insomnia to an inability to stop dwelling on the event which caused the harm in the first place.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
But, it does seem central to either argument to define exactly in what way each side is harmed or potentially harmed, in order to compare them. That's what a good utilitarian would do.


THIS.

And that's something I've tried to speak to somewhat.

What is the worst case scenario for someone who suffers from severe PTSD from sexual abuse if other people's desire to speak about BSDM practices openly in public always comes first? My answer: they are potentially prevented from freely and safely accessing public spaces that they otherwise would be able to, possibly over multiple incidences and locations, affecting their ability to access public services that the rest of the public enjoys, eta: and due to no fault or choice of their own in any respect. May experience shame because their feelings and desires are not prioritized, or acknowledged openly. Compare this to the experiences of other people who want to access public spaces freely and safely.

What is the worst case scenario for BSDM practitioners whose desire to speak about their practices openly and publicly, if the needs of people with PTSD triggers from sexual abuse always come first? My answer: They would experience censure, either social or self-internal, on the subject of their specific sexual kink, and would have to limit their discussions by silence, circumlocution, or euphemism in public, or finding more private locations for more open discourse. May experience shame because their feelings and desires are not prioritized, or acknowledged openly. Compare this to other people who want to talk about their particular sexual practices, experiences, and/or kinks openly in public.


Last edited by Rune on Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:42 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 11 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group