Page 345 of 418 FirstFirst ... 245295335343344345346347355395 ... LastLast
Results 3,441 to 3,450 of 4172

Thread: The OT thread V1

  1. #3441
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    All relationships have rules, Gordon. You're the one trying to dodge that. Once you accept that fact, then we can correct the next term you're conflating. Consent is irrelevant. WHY you consent is the basis of all relationships.
    no, they don't, not as detailed above. they happen through consent, and if they don't have consent, they don't happen at all. its a self solving problem there, ie no rules exist if the relationship doesn't exist, because there is no consent for it to exist. if you want to be shifty in your definitions, and try and call consent a rule, or something like that, then ok, but thats just not correct. sorry. or if you want to call rules movable, shiftable, changing, unpunishable things, ok, i get it, but your just not correct. that just isn't the definition of the words. im sorry, the English language doesn't agree with you.

    consent is never, ever, irrelevant.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #3442
    here is one for you about how consent and rules don't really work together.

    and since last time i used an example from my life, 3 years of my life was misdiagnosed by a stranger who doesn't know me, her, or anything about our relationship, lets use something more fun shall we? as much as i appreciate being told my relationships are meaningless, lets have some more fun shall we?

    its always sunny in Philadelphia

    when the gang buys a boat. and dennis says they need have a bunch of women on the boat, and then get them drunk, and get them alone out in international waters. they will then have sex with them. because of the implication. mac explains thats still rape, but dennis says no, they are agreeing to sex, so it isn't rape.

    its because dennis has actually taken away the woman's ability to consent.

    because "the implication" is that something bad might happen to her if she doesn't have sex with them. ie, dennis has set up a price to pay to say no. hes made it harder for her to opt out. he hasn't created a situation for them to have the freedom to opt in, hes only raised the stakes on opting out. consent isn't just NOT saying no, its opting in. not saying no, only means the price to say no is too high, but it hasn't created a consensual situation.

    link for convenience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE

    this is what rules do in a relationship. they raise the price of opting out, they raise the price of saying no. they do not create a situation to opt in. they don't create motivation to opt in. they actually take away the opportunity to honestly and fully opt in (like the phone call example). it feels bad because its not consent to be put in a situation where you are punished for saying no.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 06:19 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #3443
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    You're wrong. At this point, it's a lost cause because it's the internet and you're just being pedantic trying to save face. Even your post with the definitions proved my point. You can't build on consent without defining what you're consenting to. Consenting to be in a relationship means that you're accepting the terms (or rules) for a relationship in the 1st place.

    How do you rectify your shoddy definition with family relationships? The rules of biology and government documents defined those relationships for me. I didn't consent, but I'm in those relationships. Those relationships have rules outside my control and consent doesn't mean anything.

    I am not trying to call consent a rule. I'm saying you consent TO a rule or set of rules. You and only you have tried to dodge that. If it's a romantic relationship then your are consenting to your partner's rules however formal or informal they may be. No equivocation.

  4. #3444
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    You're wrong. At this point, it's a lost cause because it's the internet and you're just being pedantic trying to save face. Even your post with the definitions proved my point. You can't build on consent without defining what you're consenting to. Consenting to be in a relationship means that you're accepting the terms (or rules) for a relationship in the 1st place.

    How do you rectify your shoddy definition with family relationships? The rules of biology and government documents defined those relationships for me. I didn't consent, but I'm in those relationships. Those relationships have rules outside my control and consent doesn't mean anything.

    I am not trying to call consent a rule. I'm saying you consent TO a rule or set of rules. You and only you have tried to dodge that. If it's a romantic relationship then your are consenting to your partner's rules however formal or informal they may be. No equivocation.
    wait, your argument is that you don't get to choose your mother, so voluntary pairing or more of adults in relationship structures isn't based on consent?

    ..... yeah.

    i think you consent to be a partner with someone. it isn't about rules, its about trying to give someone a reason to opt into building a life with you. not trying to erect barriers to them opting out of a relationship with you. if what makes them happy is sexual fidelity, then you will give them sexual fidelity. not because its a rule they stated, but because you want to be with them. you opt in, they don't raise the price of opting out. you give them what will make them happy, and try not do things that hurt them, because you love them, not because they will dump you if you don't. no rules, just consent. you build a relationship by opting in, not raising the price of opting out. you build a relationship by consentually giving and being what someone wants, not by punishment when you transgress.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 06:30 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  5. #3445
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Your 3-year relationship was correctly diagnosed. Period. You couldn't maintain intimacy (closeness), so you broke up. Proper terms are super easy to use... you should try it.

    Your anecdote further proves my point. Legally if they were drunk it's still date rape and that's against the rules (law). By definition, sexual coercion is also illegal. If we look past those, then WHY they consented is more important than the fact that they consented. If it wasn't an illegal situation, then they just looked at the opportunity cost of the relationship and determined reasons WHY to concent. It's what we all do. Why do we stay with our partner? Security, affection, sex, whatever... Those are what lead us to concent and are the basis for relationships.

  6. #3446
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Your 3-year relationship was correctly diagnosed. Period. You couldn't maintain intimacy (closeness), so you broke up. Proper terms are super easy to use... you should try it.

    Your anecdote further proves my point. Legally if they were drunk it's still date rape and that's against the rules (law). By definition, sexual coercion is also illegal. If we look past those, then WHY they consented is more important than the fact that they consented. If it wasn't an illegal situation, then they just looked at the opportunity cost of the relationship and determined reasons WHY to concent. It's what we all do. Why do we stay with our partner? Security, affection, sex, whatever... Those are what lead us to concent and are the basis for relationships.
    wow, and now we have a solid double down on the diagnosis, despite still knowing literally nothing, other than that we fought about her wanting me to call her on the phone. the audacity and dickishness literally blows my mind. ugg white married guys thinking they know everything ... what else is new? lol

    why do we stay with our partner? because we want to ... which is ... ding ding ding ... the definition of consent. becasue we want it to happen. its doesn't actually need any more detail than that, because everyone reasons, and everyone's relationships have different reasons as to why the people in them want them to happen. the unifying single factor, is consent.

    but at least you gave up on the rules thing in this post. none of the bullshit about rules being the basis anymore. we'll get you there. we'll also eventually get you to figure out that you don't know litterally everything about everyone and exactly why everything happens. baby steps.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #3447
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Nope, I'm still where I've been. If you fought then you lacked intimacy. There's literally nothing else needed. What does me being white have to do with anything?

    The reasons WHY we want to stay with our partner drive our consent to actually stay. There is no unifying factor to relationships, every single one is built on different precepts. Those precepts (including biology) determine compatibility and we consent to accept that relationship based on those factors. It's so stupid that you would even argue this... It's like me telling you, "I went." Went where? "I chose." Chose what? "I concented." Concented to what? FFS, concent alone is completely meaningless however dimwittedly you try to argue otherwise.

    Rules was in the post twice because 2 relationship rules (laws) were violated in your anecdote. Nice try.

  8. #3448
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Nope, I'm still where I've been. If you fought then you lacked intimacy. There's literally nothing else needed. What does me being white have to do with anything?

    The reasons WHY we want to stay with our partner drive our consent to actually stay. There is no unifying factor to relationships, every single one is built on different precepts. Those precepts (including biology) determine compatibility and we consent to accept that relationship based on those factors. It's so stupid that you would even argue this... It's like me telling you, "I went." Went where? "I chose." Chose what? "I concented." Concented to what? FFS, concent alone is completely meaningless however dimwittedly you try to argue otherwise.

    Rules was in the post twice because 2 relationship rules (laws) were violated in your anecdote. Nice try.
    if you fought than you lacked intimacy? people who have intimacy can't fight? thats literally all thats needed?

    oh boy, thats another 3 pager that needs to be unpacked. jesus.

    its an anecdote about how the fact there was a rule at all is the problem. and that the solution wasn't make a new rule, or negotiate the rule, or write a new rule. the solution was not needing the rule in the first place.

    im afraid after these insane comments you make, there is no way for us to find a common place with which to discuss relationships. ..... intimate humans can't fight? jesus, thats insanity.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #3449
    sidenote, this happens to me all the time when talking to my 50 something coworkers who have been married since they were 19 .... like no, you 20 something years of sometimes making one woman happy doesn't qualify you to know exactly what every one of them them wants and needs and how to make them happy. sorry, it doesn't. gud on yah for figuring out how to keep things together with the missus, but that doesn't mean you know what my partner is thinking or why she is thinking it. sorry, you literally know nothing about her. do married guys just reach this age/position where they think they can pontificate down on everyone, everyone who literally was there and knows exactly why something happened? its bewildering to me. the audacity, the just pure insanity of it ... yes, we fougtht about calling her on the phone, that can only mean we lost that lovin' feeling, yup, thats exactly it. wow, what genius, you should be a therapist with insight like that, you could make 150 an hour spouting off genus like that!

    fuckin get real. get. real.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 08:52 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #3450
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Sigh, you're making stuff up as you go along. Read this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psy...intimate%3famp

    Intimacy, in itself is a complex construct. So yes, I believe your relationship failed in one area or more.

    Your anecdote was stupid. It was a relationship that violated multiple rules from the beginning. Just idiotic. Putting those aside, it still doesn't suggest that concent means anything by itself. It suggests that there are criteria by which we evaluate the relationship and a composite of those data points drives consent. So, without evaluation criteria there's no question to answer. Nothing to concent to.

    You're losing at every single point because there is a massive body of knowledge at odds with your basic assertions. You seem to struggle with the dictionary, so I shouldn't be surprised everything else would go over your head.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •