Vampires

[Joe Wordsworth]

No, shockingly you are not reading that right.

I was talking about pretending to be something you are not. Be it wealthy or generous or supernatural or whatever. Putting forth a false face in the hopes of getting laid.

And you know- I didn't say eiter one was acceptable.

So, such things are unacceptable?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Joe, you know that's exactly what she means, and exactly the opposite of what she means.

Admit it, you can see the grey.

thank you, g.

 

[gauchecritic]

Oh, I can admit to a greyness--assuming we can admit to there being black and white... because if we're saying that all believed things fall under the umbrella of "just part of the spice of life", we're opening the door to some pretty depraved shit being beyond reproach. Including invading Iraq because they had WMD, killing people because they were witches, and persecuting Jews on the grounds of natural superiority.

Isn't that the whole point? Very few people occupy the black and white areas and the depravity comes from not seeing the grey.

Those people in the black and white areas rarely (but often enough) attain any sort of power over the whole world. Ceasers, Kahns, Hitlers, Bushes.

Which means that if they aren't frequent enough or powerful enough then on the whole it doesn't really matter; in the great scheme of things.

Of course it matters to those affected, dead soldiers, families of abducted, the haves and have nots.

And falling back on ingenuosness(?) doesn't move the discussion forward.

 

[sweetnpetite]

So, such things are unacceptable?

the point was, weather or not they were exceptable was not the point. The point that I never said that they were was an aside. And also me pointing out that you are puting words in my mouth, since I never commented on the acceptability or unacceptabilty of either.

Rather than go on a rabbit hunt about this aside, let's get back to my actual point. To Wit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Wordsworth
So... spending more money than one is comfortable with is equally acceptable as believing one's self a supernatural predator of mankind, immortal and magically powerful so long as one drinks the blood of the living?

Am I reading that right?
Unqutote



No, shockingly you are not reading that right.

I was talking about pretending to be something you are not. Be it wealthy or generous or supernatural or whatever. Putting forth a false face in the hopes of getting laid.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Isn't that the whole point? Very few people occupy the black and white areas and the depravity comes from not seeing the grey.

Those people in the black and white areas rarely (but often enough) attain any sort of power over the whole world. Ceasers, Kahns, Hitlers, Bushes.

Which means that if they aren't frequent enough or powerful enough then on the whole it doesn't really matter; in the great scheme of things.

Of course it matters to those affected, dead soldiers, families of abducted, the haves and have nots.

And falling back on ingenuosness(?) doesn't move the discussion forward.

I would say that it can move the discussion forward, if its an effort to clarify that the propogation of a lie (whether genuinely believed or purported as a genuine belief, even if it isn't) is not always a matter of "grey area-ness"--so if we're to find a place where the discussion can move forward, it may be necessary to establish grounds more firm than "all delusions are co-equal". And, in doing so, establish whether believing one's self an undead predator of humankind with supernatural powers is in the "grey area" as far as "acceptable and perfectly harmless things to believe and purport to other people as true".

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

the point was, weather or not they were exceptable was not the point. The point that I never said that they were was an aside. And also me pointing out that you are puting words in my mouth, since I never commented on the acceptability or unacceptabilty of either.

As I have yet to state that you asserted anything, I haven't put any words in your mouth--rather, I asked for a clarification, which you gave. And from that clarification, you hold the position that you aren't saying that either is acceptable.

To which I ask, "So, are they unacceptable?" in order to not assume or put words in your mouth.

Very simply really.

No, shockingly you are not reading that right.

I was talking about pretending to be something you are not. Be it wealthy or generous or supernatural or whatever. Putting forth a false face in the hopes of getting laid.

And you know- I didn't say eiter one was acceptable.

We can do this again, if we have to.

I acknowledge that you're not saying that either is acceptable. My question is, "Are they unacceptable?"

 

[sweetnpetite]

I would say that it can move the discussion forward, if its an effort to clarify that the propogation of a lie (whether genuinely believed or purported as a genuine belief, even if it isn't) is not always a matter of "grey area-ness"--so if we're to find a place where the discussion can move forward, it may be necessary to establish grounds more firm than "all delusions are co-equal".

see your claims keep changing. first it was about pretention, then something else and now harm against society.

Of course some people are harmful against society. But that doesn't mean that people *you* consider pretensious have the delusions that *you* attribute to them.

secondly, i was arguing against your 'pretensios' point, and you come sideways with the harm point, rather than arguing point for point. I don't like that because your not acctually arguing against the point i made, your in effect changing the topic

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Just so I've got a sense of where this particular thread went...

But you are also applying *your* definition of what 'really makes a vampire'- rather than accepting the definition of the person who defines themself that way.

This would be untrue. Douche-boy applied a definition of "vampire" perfectly in congress with my definition of "vampire"--and said he actually was one. Thus the consternation.

 

[sweetnpetite]

As I have yet to state that you asserted anything, I haven't put any words in your mouth--rather, I asked for a clarification, which you gave. And from that clarification, you hold the position that you aren't saying that either is acceptable.

To which I ask, "So, are they unacceptable?" in order to not assume or put words in your mouth.

Very simply really.



We can do this again, if we have to.

I acknowledge that you're not saying that either is acceptable. My question is, "Are they unacceptable?"

That's not the point I'm arguing.

I'm winning my point, and you're changing the topic. [or at least it sure seems that way to me-- anyone else?]

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

see your claims keep changing. first it was about pretention, then something else and now harm against society.

My claims aren't changing at all. What we're talking about keeps changing.

At first I was talking about the pretension of calling one's self a vampire lord and beckoning women to take part in one's "dark life of the night" through cheesy personal ads.

Then, I was talking about someone actually claiming to be a vampire. I'll say that slower... actually... claimed... to... be... a... vampire. Complete with the psychic powers, undeadness, bit and turned into one by a master vampire, Hollywood-esque stuff. And I talked about how that blew my mind, because it was fraud.

Then, someone brought up psychology of such a practice and I started talking about how genuine belief about things like it can be dangerous.

Then, you brought up how I'm applying a different definition of vampire to the situation--to which I can only say, the guy who said he was a vampire had the same definition as me. But, we were talking about the accuracy and acceptability of naming things.

None of these are the same thing and ought be talked about using different terms, to protect accuracy.

Of course some people are harmful against society. But that doesn't mean that people *you* consider pretensious have the delusions that *you* attribute to them.

Of course not. But when they SAY they have them? What is one to do but assume they have them or assume they're claiming to have them?

secondly, i was arguing against your 'pretensios' point, and you come sideways with the harm point, rather than arguing point for point. I don't like that because your not acctually arguing against the point i made, your in effect changing the topic

Make a point, I'll say what I think of it. But, the conversation hasn't been topically unchanging--I'll quote pieces of the thread to show you, but this hasn't been on one straight course since the beginning (and no, I haven't been guiding it).

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

That's not the point I'm arguing.

I'm not saying that you are. I'm just asking what you mean by "I'm not saying either is acceptable". Do you mean they are acceptable? No, obviously not. Do you mean they are unacceptable? Maybe--I'd like to know, before I assume one way or the other.

I'm winning my point, and you're changing the topic. [or at least it sure seems that way to me-- anyone else?]

What point are you "winning" and how are you "winning it"?

Tell you what, let's start over. Specifically, concisely, and accurately (without undue prose or repetition)... what is your point?

 

[sweetnpetite]

We are never going to agree, so let me just explain my pont of view and then bow out.

You're original post came off- to me at least- as condescending and arrogant. Then I felt like you were justifying that attitude with your concern for society--- and for us poor nieve wimmens.

If he needs to make himself feel important by pretending to be a vampire, consider this: If she is willing to believe these silly lies or pretensions and sleep with him or prover herself to him or whatever, maybe she needs to make herself feel important by being with someone who is 'special.' In otherwords- she's not so dumb, she's dilluding herself as well. Trust me, us girls, we are very good at acting dumb- but that doesn't mean we are. Most of us know that a 'nightcap' is more than a drink and 'come up and see my sketches' isn't a bid for artistic critique. But we play along.

A guy trying to get a girl in bed by pretending to be a vampire is not more of a danger to society than anyother sleezy or not so sleezy method tried every day by millions of men. Plain and simple. Weather or not he believes he's above the morals and laws of man is a whole other issue altogether.

Yes- I feel that you are confusing the issues [deliberatly] in order to find support for your outrage at something that you just don't approve of plain and simple. The way a lawyer for fundamentalist christian might do in an obsenity case about the dangers of pornography or some strip club they want to close down.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Alright, that was very much clearer--I think I understand.

So, would you say that the practice was unacceptable or wrong?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Then, you brought up how I'm applying a different definition of vampire to the situation--to which I can only say, the guy who said he was a vampire had the same definition as me. But, we were talking about the accuracy and acceptability of naming things.

Ok- I'll give you that- but i haven't really been focused on that specific guy- but more on the general conclusions s====================== you seemed to apply========================================= ok- the baby's hijacking my computer sorry6 utt48t75r87ttttttttttt68ijohmnnoi7tr698uy87tu58u