Philosophy...

DarkAndEvil · 07-19-2011, 05:38 PM

Well, this is a debate I've seen many times before, and I have my own opinions, but it's always interesting to read others'.

Master/Mistress and slave, dominant and submissive are terms we throw about a lot. Different people have different definitions - and some people are quite militant in their beliefs.

My topic for debate is not the correctness, or lack, of people's definitions, but two simple questions:

Can one be a Master without someone/something to be Master of?
i.e. is one simply a dominant with experience, or something else without a slave/submissive?

Can one be a slave without being enslaved to someone?
i.e. without a master is one simply a submissive (albeit under some definitions with slave tendancies)

Akuma_Tataka · 07-19-2011, 05:57 PM

you can be a master without someone to own. It is a presence that would force people to submit to you. a commanding aura.

as for a slave. no. A hammer does not pick itself up and make itself useful. Granted the example is a little stretch but the ideal is still true. A slave is just a submissive person with out a master.

carom · 07-21-2011, 07:20 AM

There are many aspects that all use the word Master(slave that mean different things and that require a different answer

For example Master in the way of "Master of". Or the preference of the lifestyle of Master/slave.

The label Master is used in both casses. For the first use the answer is no to your questions for the second the answer is yes to both questions.

Master and slave are labels, no magic words or words with a deeper meaning. People use labels out of very different reasons. Some with good reasons some with bad ones.
So to answer the question i would have to ask what do you define as Master or slave first.

07-19-2011, 05:38 PM	#1
DarkAndEvil getDare Sweetheart Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Posts: 289 Blog Entries: 2	Philosophy... Well, this is a debate I've seen many times before, and I have my own opinions, but it's always interesting to read others'. Master/Mistress and slave, dominant and submissive are terms we throw about a lot. Different people have different definitions - and some people are quite militant in their beliefs. My topic for debate is not the correctness, or lack, of people's definitions, but two simple questions: Can one be a Master without someone/something to be Master of? i.e. is one simply a dominant with experience, or something else without a slave/submissive? Can one be a slave without being enslaved to someone? i.e. without a master is one simply a submissive (albeit under some definitions with slave tendancies) __________________ I am me. Not much more to say, really Last edited by DarkAndEvil; 07-19-2011 at 05:42 PM. Reason: Pressing enter decided to post....so finishing the posting!

07-19-2011, 05:57 PM	#2
Akuma_Tataka Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 58	you can be a master without someone to own. It is a presence that would force people to submit to you. a commanding aura. as for a slave. no. A hammer does not pick itself up and make itself useful. Granted the example is a little stretch but the ideal is still true. A slave is just a submissive person with out a master. __________________ Ye though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death I shall fear no evil for I am the evil to be feared. Bondage by a Demon

07-21-2011, 07:20 AM	#3
carom Account Banned Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 74	There are many aspects that all use the word Master(slave that mean different things and that require a different answer For example Master in the way of "Master of". Or the preference of the lifestyle of Master/slave. The label Master is used in both casses. For the first use the answer is no to your questions for the second the answer is yes to both questions. Master and slave are labels, no magic words or words with a deeper meaning. People use labels out of very different reasons. Some with good reasons some with bad ones. So to answer the question i would have to ask what do you define as Master or slave first.