Another reason why BDSM will never gain acceptance in the US

[teknight]

I've never understood why a good discussion should result in people getting pissed off. And it's not a good discussion if we all start in agreement (or even necessarily end in agreement.)

Quite simple: I've managed to piss off a bunch of people today (including in RL) so I figure I'm on a roll.

That's true in mathematics and related fields (physics, for example). If you hit the definition of the word though (taken from dictionary.com), you get the following:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Acutally, I won't depeeve: I find that in such debates as the one over evolution, the misconception of the word "theory" fucks things up, 'cause a theory's viewed as mere guesswork- a hypothesis, if you will.
Also, you'll notice that conjecture comes in last on the list. That's public usage, and still wrong.

Er... really? In which culture? While I agree with your opinion that monogamy isn't as important as it is touted to be, I don't agree that it ever was important. Nor am I sure how you get to this:

In the sense that getting stoned in the public forum because you did it seems kind of a big deal. I was not saying that your ancestors were monogamous. Far from it .


Er, do you meen proof or theorem or conjecture? [/QUOTE]

I meen nothing. And:
Science doesn't prove shit, it's not how it works. It actually works to disprove stuff.
Also, I used the word "fact".
To sum up, I was just throwing words out there.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Quite simple: I've managed to piss off a bunch of people today (including in RL) so I figure I'm on a roll.

The mantra for you today;

It ISN'T about me, it ISN'T about me....


But you are so very correct about the misuse of the word "theory" and I was thinking about how much trouble it would be to type out all of that hypothesis word so I used the shorter one instead.

Plus it's a little easier to spell and shit.

 

[JMohegan]

Frankly, I'm happy that you've come to accept a woman (or a sequence of women) as being unique, lovely beings, worth more the more you get to know them....but here's the flipside to that coin:
Any woman could be that..whether she's the 1960s' model or 2015's. Thus denying the younger woman's value for no other reason than that she's young is quite frankly sexist and weirdly snobbish.

I'm not the one who said a young woman's appeal to men is in her youth, and personality has nothing to do with it. That was satindesire.

Of course young women can be unique, lovely beings, worth more the more you get to know them. That's true for women of any age - and my point, precisely.

But that worth depends on the strength and depth of the connection between individuals. A complex connection, involving both physical and mental attractiveness, conscious and unconscious triggers, as well as relative adherence to moral codes and social mores.

 

[FungiUg]

That's public usage, and still wrong.
...
To sum up, I was just throwing words out there.

Uhuh. You mean you were using the "public usage" forms of the words?

Sorry, but if a word is defined in a dictionary, I take that as a valid definition of the word. That's not the only one that does so either.

The Collins English dictionary includes this definition:
theory (ˈθɪərɪ)

— n , pl -ries
1. a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result
2. abstract knowledge or reasoning
3. a speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that
4. an ideal or hypothetical situation (esp in the phrase in theory )
5. a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms: the theory of relativity
6. a nontechnical name for hypothesis

What you are confusing is the use of a word in a specialised context (jargon if you will) with the broader sense of the word in the English language outside that context.

In an English sentence, it is perfectly valid to use the word "theory" to mean a conjecture. In mathematics or physics, not so much.

 

[graceanne]

Um... that's a little simplistic, isn't it?

Yes. I was making a point.

 

[Etoile]

Oh my.

 

[teknight]

Which is your theory.

I'll call it a theory if I want to. And if you can only be picky about that that part your argument is pretty week.

It's not weak. It's my own bias resulting from a higher education.
A theory has proof behind it. A hypothesis is something cool I come up with that I don't have much backing for.
But, fine. Pet peeve, who cares about using intelligible terms in a debate?

Who said anything about sublimation, or denial for that matter?

You did: "I think people should try and rise over their instincts, honestly."
I call that sublimation..using what's there to achieve something higher, i.e. rising over your instincts. What I'm asking is: what do you replace your instincts with?

But I see your point: I thought you were going for something more abstract, and not resorting to anecdote. I didn't know this from your original post.

I didn't. Anorexic isn't healthy, but most healthy women aren't fat. Definition of a healthy woman is one with a healthy amount of body fat, because women need body fat, who's in good physical shape. That's a healthy woman.

OK. I can live with that.

Um, wow. Talk about reading a lot into what I said that isn't there, but I didn't say they were ugly, I said they're unhealthy. I also said that men usually go for healthy skinny, not anorexic skinny. Women, which last I checked I am, find anorexic skinny beautiful, which is why they use too slim women in fashion magazines. Well, that and the camera adds pounds, so to look healthy, you have to be underweight.

I wasn't reading anything into anything, the idea came to me.
And on this thread- healthy=beautiful, as per SD's posts.
Do women really believe that? Or have their heads been screwed with by the media? There is a current movement towards "plus sized models" and banning "anorexic" runway models in fashion...


And why are they bargaining chips? Because the men of that world think they're hot. If they were thought of as nasty they wouldn't be much good as a bargaining chip. Duh.[/QUOTE]

 

[Etoile]

But, fine. Pet peeve, who cares about using intelligible terms in a debate?

I just don't think this one's worth the effort. You might have this particular pet peeve, but you still know what was intended, right? So twitch when you see it, but don't obsess over trying to correct people. If you know what was intended, that's the main thing.

 

[teknight]

The mantra for you today;

It ISN'T about me, it ISN'T about me....

It might not be about you....

Uhuh. You mean you were using the "public usage" forms of the words?
Sorry, but if a word is defined in a dictionary, I take that as a valid definition of the word. That's not the only one that does so either.
What you are confusing is the use of a word in a specialised context (jargon if you will) with the broader sense of the word in the English language outside that context.
In an English sentence, it is perfectly valid to use the word "theory" to mean a conjecture. In mathematics or physics, not so much.

I did mess up that last one. And I am being a snob about it. But, fact is that they're not perfect synonyms, regardless of what the dictionary says. You see, a dictionary comes out after the fact, it doesn't set the rules before the fact. It states that people use the two terms interchangeably...and that is incorrect, as it
leads to confusion, see my previous evolution post.

I will stick to my guns on this one, 'cause I make a valid point, based on actual distinctions.

Oh my.

Are you OK? Wanna chime in, or do you need a moment?

 

[graceanne]

It's not weak. It's my own bias resulting from a higher education.
A theory has proof behind it. A hypothesis is something cool I come up with that I don't have much backing for.
But, fine. Pet peeve, who cares about using intelligible terms in a debate?

Pulling out the higher education thing is also sign of a week argument. "Oh, you all are so stupid and uneducated so you couldn't possibly understand what I'm talking about." But if you want to pull that card, I'll pull the IQ card - I have an IQ of 139. Bite me.

You did: "I think people should try and rise over their instincts, honestly."
I call that sublimation..using what's there to achieve something higher, i.e. rising over your instincts. What I'm asking is: what do you replace your instincts with?

Sublimation is ignoring and pretending it's not there. Rising above means acknowledging it's there and choosing to do something else.

But I see your point: I thought you were going for something more abstract, and not resorting to anecdote. I didn't know this from your original post.

Anecdotal is good for making points and explanations.

 

[FungiUg]

Pet peeve, who cares about using intelligible terms in a debate?

I guess why I jumped on it is that people also use words like "proof" (yourself included) in a non-contextual fashion when it has a very distinct contextual meaning.

So I find it ironic that you are happy to use "proof" in the non-specific manner while objecting to others doing the same with "theory".

Plus it's a fun argument.

 

[teknight]

I just don't think this one's worth the effort. You might have this particular pet peeve, but you still know what was intended, right? So twitch when you see it, but don't obsess over trying to correct people. If you know what was intended, that's the main thing.

I'm actually on a propagandistic bend here: I would like for people to pick up the two terms as separate, as it clarifies things. Am I asking for too much? Yes. Does it make it wrong? No. Stubborn? totally.

 

[graceanne]

I just don't think this one's worth the effort. You might have this particular pet peeve, but you still know what was intended, right? So twitch when you see it, but don't obsess over trying to correct people. If you know what was intended, that's the main thing.

But this way he can bring up his higher education so everyone will know how smart he is.

 

[FungiUg]

But, fact is that they're not perfect synonyms, regardless of what the dictionary says. You see, a dictionary comes out after the fact, it doesn't set the rules before the fact. It states that people use the two terms interchangeably...and that is incorrect, as it leads to confusion, see my previous evolution post.

Um... fair comment. However, they etymology of the word says the literal meaning is "to view". So theory is "a view" or a conjecture. The technical use of the term didn't evolve until the 1600s. So which use came first?

Also, the meaning of words do evolve, and the "public usage" of a word is the meaning. A classic example is the word "gay". Run with that one if you will.

 

[teknight]

Pulling out the higher education thing is also sign of a week argument. "Oh, you all are so stupid and uneducated so you couldn't possibly understand what I'm talking about." But if you want to pull that card, I'll pull the IQ card - I have an IQ of 139. Bite me.

Don't get defensive. I'm not saying you're dumb, but that's my background. OK. I'll say I read it in a book somewhere and really liked how they made the distinction. Do you find that more appealing, or is it still a weak argument?

I'm not calling you dumb (sorry if you felt targeted) but it is the reason why I choose to be so anal about this particular dyad.

 

[teknight]

You're all right: My education should stand as the reason for my vilification. Why is that statement stubbing toes?

 

[FungiUg]

Pulling out the higher education thing is also sign of a week argument. "Oh, you all are so stupid and uneducated so you couldn't possibly understand what I'm talking about." But if you want to pull that card, I'll pull the IQ card - I have an IQ of 139.

To be fair, I don't think that's what he was doing. I think he was explaining why he has the bias around the word, not claiming that he was superior in any fashion.

Bite me.

Yay!

 

[FungiUg]

My education should stand as the reason for my vilification.

Interestingly, my degree includes mathematics, physics and english.

Stubborn?

Well then, you're in the right place!

 

[graceanne]

Don't get defensive. I'm not saying you're dumb, but that's my background. OK. I'll say I read it in a book somewhere and really liked how they made the distinction. Do you find that more appealing, or is it still a weak argument?

That is a better argument.

I'm not calling you dumb (sorry if you felt targeted) but it is the reason why I choose to be so anal about this particular dyad.

It's okay. My pet peeve is people being picky about stuff like that and ignoring the rest of the argument. It's called splitting hairs, and it annoys the shit out of me, because it's a way of distracting whoever you're having a disagreement with, so that you can win the argument.

ETA: I don't mean you're doing that, but with people who know what they're doing, argument wise, they will.

 

[graceanne]

Yay!

Dream on. I know better than to give you permission to bite me. Perv.

 

[FungiUg]

Dream on. I know better than to give you permission to bite me. Perv.

Damn. Foiled again. Oh well, at least I have cookies!

 

[teknight]

Um... fair comment. However, they etymology of the word says the literal meaning is "to view". So theory is "a view" or a conjecture. The technical use of the term didn't evolve until the 1600s. So which use came first?

Also, the meaning of words do evolve, and the "public usage" of a word is the meaning. A classic example is the word "gay". Run with that one if you will.

Like I said, it's propaganda, on my part. Today, Lit, tomorrow, the world!

To be fair, I don't think that's what he was doing. I think he was explaining why he has the bias around the word, not claiming that he was superior in any fashion.

What he said

Interestingly, my degree includes mathematics, physics and english.

Ewww! Those are gay! (how's that for running with it?)

That is a better argument.

It's okay. My pet peeve is people being picky about stuff like that and ignoring the rest of the argument. It's called splitting hairs, and it annoys the shit out of me, because it's a way of distracting whoever you're having a disagreement with, so that you can win the argument.

OK. I agree that nitpicking is a diversionary tactic. I use it because as a part of my higher education* I was taught to define terms very narrowly. It's what I'm trying to do- come to a basic understanding over the terms we are using, so that we know we're talking about the same thing, which I view as a good stepping stone for dialog. Otherwise we're just flinging words at one another like so much feces.

* I mean, I read that in a book too!

 

[graceanne]

Damn. Foiled again. Oh well, at least I have cookies!

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=34998804&postcount=28

OK. I agree that nitpicking is a diversionary tactic. I use it because as a part of my higher education* I was taught to define terms very narrowly. It's what I'm trying to do- come to a basic understanding over the terms we are using, so that we know we're talking about the same thing, which I view as a good stepping stone for dialog. Otherwise we're just flinging words at one another like so much feces.

* I mean, I read that in a book too!

I learned, in my lower education, that you can take a word in context and figure out what the person using that word meant. You knew what I meant by that word, you were nitpicking, splitting hairs, whatever. Whether you learned to do it in college or not, you were still doing it.

 

[FungiUg]

Ewww! Those are gay! (how's that for running with it?)

Exactly! The word has changed meaning twice (so that's three separate meanings) in my own lifetime. One of my favourite lines that illustrates this is from one of the C.S. Lewis Narnia books:

"Edmund was suddenly gay."

Reading that today, I could take that to mean he was suddenly happy, suddenly sucked, or suddenly sucked cock.

It's what I'm trying to do- come to a basic understanding over the terms we are using, so that we know we're talking about the same thing, which I view as a good stepping stone for dialog. Otherwise we're just flinging words at one another like so much feces.

Sure. But we're not writing essays here, we're holding a disconnected discussion. In English. In a non-contextual form. Now if we start talking statistics or science, then we will need a tighter definition of theory.

By the way, when you claim science doesn't prove anything, do you count mathematics as a science? (In mathematics, you don't use science to proove anything, you use latin.)

 

[teknight]

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=34998804&postcount=28



I learned, in my lower education, that you can take a word in context and figure out what the person using that word meant. You knew what I meant by that word, you were nitpicking, splitting hairs, whatever. Whether you learned to do it in college or not, you were still doing it.

Fine. Be pissed. I was nitpicking, but there a purpose behind it. Taking a word in context renders the experience subjective, and thus breaks down the commonality necessary for good dialog.