-
kajira wrote:
Saying someone is dangerous is not the same thing as saying one has evidence that same person has done harm. JK is dispensing advice that is potentially dangerous. He IS doing so. Ergo, he is dangerous.
Judy wrote:
here is where we disagree. You say JK is dispensing advice that is potentially dangerous. This is an opinion, kajira. It assumes that the person reading the advice has no sense, has no ability to evaluate any risks, yet has the intent of taking advice from someone he or she does not even know.
They don't know any better, unless we talk about these things. I would never encourage a teen to play around with humiliation. They are still in a phase in their lives that would be, from my estimation, too dangerous to do it safely. And that is the issue here. Not everyone that reads here is mature. Not everyone here is careful. Not everyone here has any amount of common sense. And I'm *not* talking just about people that are young, here.
- Judy wrote:
i could say that i enjoy riding my bike in traffic and i suggest others do so also (oh yes, i do, by the way). If someone goes out there without a helmet and rides in the wrong direction, that person is asking for trouble, but is simply following my advice, too. Am i responsible? i don't think so. People are responsible for themselves, for paying attention, for making sure that what they do is safe. Nobody can possibly list all of the caveats on a particular activity and be absolutely certain they have not missed something.
- Judy wrote:
Further, if i were to read something of JK's and think, :hmmm, sounds interesting, i might want to try that, i would check around first. i might even ask him more about it, how to go about it, how to do it correctly.
- Judy wrote:
(i don't think this would be my sole bit of investigation, however) i *assume * (stupidly, i know) that others know they are responsible for themselves.
- Judy wrote:
Certainly JK is not responsible for people not using common sense or checking things out carefully before trying.
- Judy wrote:
i have heard these generalities thrown out before, that what JK advises may be dangerous. But when i look at particular cases i do not see that it is, personally.
Because *YOU* do not see something as a danger to yourself does not mean that it isn't dangerous.
- Judy wrote:
It may be that i apply more common sense than others do, that i value my life more? i don't know.
- Judy wrote:
But of course i have not read everything he has written, either. And he may well have said some things that are way out there. In that case, again, wouldn't you want to investigate it a tiny bit?
- Judy wrote:
So no, i don't think that because someone *suggests* something that others *suspect* may be dangerous that that person *is dangerous*. THat logic don't follow, kiddo. It requires too much of a leap.
- Judy wrote:
Incidentally, almost everyone i have met online and then in person - almost every Dom - has not been 'as advertised'. They were not deliberately deceiving me. None were in any way dishonest,that i could tell. And i am convinced that, in spite of my best efforts to reveal myself (pro and con), i was not the person they thought i would be.
- Judy wrote:
Because this made me think of something else. A friend said to me recently, "They would never say that in person".
- Judy wrote:
And that somehow synthesized a lot of things for me. Many of the statements made in this newsgroup would never be made if the two persons were to face each other in real life.
- Judy wrote:
i know i would not say as much because i would not have the luxury to go on and on like this, but i do try not to say anything i could not eventually say to the other person directly, that i would be ashamed to say.
- Judy wrote:
Bingo. i hate to use terms like that (bingo) but this time... How do you put together assertions that he is dangerous with those that others do not find him credible?
People that just come to this group, are new to bdsm, or don't know what they're doing will not know how to evaluate that danger, or his credibility, and know whether they should try what he is talking about.
- Judy wrote:
i think you have to give people some credit for being able to read for themselves and to think for themselves.
[big snip]
- kajira wrote:
Then why'd you say that moonlight's being harmed by being called a bitch is absurd?
Judy wrote:
i clarified this above. i still stand by it, that the word itself is not going to hurt her, and this seems especially true when you look at her reaction! Again, i am not suggesting that she do this, only that a word by itself is not going to send her to the mental hospital. If it did, then she is far sicker than an aversion to "bitch" suggests.
Would I actually rip someone's throat out? No. That was me being cute. I've said this several times. If you're not going to understand what I wrote, please don't use me as an example. Because you are using something I said mistakenly.
And I did not say it caused absolute harm. Nor did I say it would harm everyone.
I did not say that being called a bitch would send me to a mental hospital, cause me to have a nervous breakdown, or anything of that nature. I said Argentium's calling me a bitch, because of his understanding of the word, would be damaging to me. And to our relationship.
I'll thank you to stop trying to evaluate my mental state when you don't understand what I said in the *FIRST* place.
- kajira wrote:
Like saying their personal issues are absurd? Like saying "some people" are seriously damaged?
Judy wrote:
i was not attacking her,
- Judy wrote:
"word by itself is not going to send her to the mental hospital. If it did, then she is far sicker than an aversion to "bitch" suggests." i was attacking the belief that a word can cause irreparable harm.
- Judy wrote:
and stating what i know about a few people on this newsgroup, but not naming them. Not attacking them, but pointing out that one should not go by words alone when evaluating anyone.
