|
ownedgirlie -> RE: The difference in the true way, and My way (3/21/2008 6:54:36 PM)
|
Hi Stella,
First, thank you for taking the time to answer all my questions. I had some time on my hands and found your post interesting enough to ask about. In turn, I will answer you the best that I can.
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b
Me too. But 'ones' is a bit general, how about specific examples? No need to be that specific.
OK, speaking for myself only, as I am not qualified to speak for anyone else on these threads (and also keeping in mind I'm listing the following examples as just that - examples - and not as anything I have a lot of energy about anymore):
* I do not limit my Master in his use of me. As a result, I have been referred to as mentally ill/unstable, not caring about myself, a doormat, a robot, and the equivalent of a blow up doll. Oh yeah, and I live in a fantasy, and that I am a liar.
* I partake in certain activities that others find gross or offensive or unhealthy. I have read posts about how my Master does not give a damn about me as a result.
* I have given examples of how I submit to my Master. On numerous occasions I have been called an elitist, a one-twue-wayer, thinking I am better than everyone, full of hubris, etc. etc. I was also told that I don't need to be that way to be a slave (as though the way I am is wrong?).
* I do not live with my Master. I have been held up by one particular (and well thought of) dominant on these boards as the example of what a slave is not. I was recently told by a submissive on these boards that since I don't live with him, my submission is a lot easier than the average slave's.
Those are some examples just off the top of my head, without having to give it any thought. These "ones" are people on the CollarChat message boards, made by "regulars" who are well liked and well considered here.
quote:
The above statement I made was addressed specifically to Leatherist. What you've done here is taken it out of context and responded to it as if it was addressed to you.
Yes, as I said, I wanted to take a stab at your questions. I can't speak for Leatherist and I won't try to. Since what you quoted from him didn't have anything to do with giving people advice, I thought it was a generic question.
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b
The same thing here. You've taken something addressed to Leatherist and taken it upon yourself to respond to it as if it's addressed to you personally. I happen to agree with your point here. Therefore in knowing that I share your opinion on this point, I do believe that this answers the question you put to me, does it not?
Again, it appeared to be a generic question and I wanted to give it my point of view. But yes, you have answered my question, thank you.
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b
Okay, so granted that your definition of intolerance may be different to mine, and what I saw as intolerance you see as frustration. But what gives you the impression that I'm confused? Why not just accept that my definition of intolerance is different to your's?
I didn't know your definition of intolerant, since you had not expressed it. But yes, I can see that since Leatherist referred to intolerant people as "idiotic", he is intolerant of intolerant people. :)
My statement that intolerance and frustration should not be confused was not aimed directly at you and was not meant to imply you are confused. I did not communicate clearly and I apologize for that.
I do not actually think all people should be tolerant of all things. I am intolerant of bigotry, for example. Or or brutal acts of violence against unsuspecting victims.
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b
I think you've missed the point here. Leatherist was making the point of people shouting intolerance needing to learn tolerance. As I felt I was one of the people being addressed, I just felt it valid to make the point I made. If you notice I make no reference to his earlier point. Leatherist is perfectly entitled to his own views and opinions, including the one he expressed which I responded to. I'm therefore not quite sure what is the exact point you're trying to make here. Are you implying that I was trying to censor Leatherist? This is the impression I get, but like I say, I'm not sure. Maybe you can clarify this point?
First, I had no idea you had taken his post personally, since you had not yet posted in this thread. Had I known this was a personal issue between you both, I would not have interjected my opinions.
I don't know what earlier point you are speaking of. He had only posted one post up until then, and you quoted it in its entirety.
The only point I meant in my statement was what I said - if no one cared if people cared about their opinions, they wouldn't state it. I have no idea what is or was or might be going on between you & Leatherist and I was answering your questions from my own point of view about myself.
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b
Okay you don't see intolerance, I did, which is why I made my point. You're almost there when it comes to my intention, I did intend to challenge a poster's specific position or stance in this thread, not directly challenge the poster. Making references which directly challenge the poster personally is a rather weak form of argument and something I never intentionally do. It's also a very good way of upsetting or offending someone.
Then you did lose your point on me, as your questions of him were of a personal nature and not of his view. With questions like "Why don't you just concentrate on being you" and "Now who's being intolerant here" I saw questions that were challenging someone personally.
quote:
I thought I made it perfectly clear that I was challenging a statement and the thinking which motivated that statement, and not challenging Leatherist directly as a person. I have no wish or need to do so, I don't know him. If however you or Leatherist feel that I have made a personal challenge through what I have written then I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention.
This was not "perfectly clear" to me at all. I am not offended by it, as it did not affect me directly. I was simply responding my opinion to what I read your post to be.
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b
This is where you make me have some doubts as to how to respond. As far as I'm aware Leatherist made a statement in one of his postings which I felt worthy of challenge. I made the challenge. He's responded. I responded to his response to state that I accept his response and his position.
OK. In the post I responded to, I only saw you state "this is tolerance" when you hadn't actually shown any examples of such, that I could see. I just wanted to know what you thought tolerance was.
quote:
You've taken two of the statements in my previous posting and responded to them out of context.
I disagree. I quoted your post in entirety and answered as I saw your questions to be.
quote:
You've also implied I'm confused as to what intolerance means, and there appears to be some discrepancy as to whether I was challenging Leatherist's position in a posting on this thread and his thinking behind it or I was making a direct personal challenge to Leatherist as a poster.
Hopefully I have corrected myself that I did not intend to imply you were confused. As to challenging another poster's position or person, whatever your intent was, hopefully I clarified why I interpreted it as I did.
quote:
Now I thought it was pretty clear what my opinion was from reading carefully what I wrote. I would also assume that if I make a direct challenge to a statement in a posting on a thread that likely as not I disagree with that statement.
It was not clear to me. It was clear you disagreed, yes, but there was no clarity as to what your own views were. I might disagree with someone who says all dogs are brown. All that person knows is that I don't think all dogs are brown. The person doesn't know what color I think the non-brown dogs are.
quote:
But okay. I'll try again.
Thank you :)
quote:
Leatherist's position:
People who cry intolerance need to learn more tolerance.
My position:
People who cry intolerance are also able to be tolerant towards other people.
I agree with both of you. But I think tolerance is discretionary and not everyone will tolerate the same things. This doesn't mean I have to agree with what they are tolerant or intolerant about. And disagreeing with them isn't saying they need to be like me. It just means I wish they would respect my point of view, or perhaps disagree a bit more respectfully.
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b
Okay, what is tolerance?
Firstly, tolerance is about freedom and personal responsibility.
Secondly, freedom recognizes a person for being human, and not for any other aspect or characteristic about them.
Thirdly, being free also means being responsible.
Therefore to me tolerance is about accepting personal responsibility for the freedom you enjoy to be yourself and to express yourself however which way you choose. Part of that responsibility is allowing other people the same freedom and the same responsibility.
Making a general statement like fat people need to make more effort to lose weight isn't in my opinion being tolerant, but is an intolerant statement made against fat people.
Most sweeping generalizations about an unspecified group of people involving the words should, need to, must, to me indicate intolerance and not tolerance, purely on the basis that the person making the statement doesn't accept the group of people referred to as they are in reality.
I hope this makes things clearer.
It does. Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
|
|
|
|
