- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
>Oh yes that’s right, sorry forgive me, I am mistaken. I >don’t understand (that saying again). Sadism isn't about >abuse at all is it? Oh no its about fluffy hand cuffs, >gently doms, and afternoons of fun spanking subs. Hang on >though, isn’t it about wifely contracts as well, isnt it >about torture chambers, and cutting, and canning, and >whiping? Isn't it about humiliation, and beatings to >ensure rules are obeyed? Isnt it about abusers pandering >to their ego’s by manipulating others to exhalt them to >feed their narcissistic belief in their own superiority?"
Ad Hominem. Just all all into BDSM all really just sick sadists and abusers, so too all Germans are Nazis and all blacks lazy and all whites racist and...
What if someone is into BDSM that involves no pain or torture whatsoever? Is that still abusive and sick?
>I see that the ‘fluffy hand cuffs’ brigade use the same >argument to legitimize their abuse that the German >cannibal used when he ate his victim. Exactly the same >argument, the big lie that is ‘informed consent’.
Irrelevant. "Someone else uses a similar argument to justify something bad, so you must be wrong."
>This is simply your opinion Anony, I am merely questioning >your defence of sadism.
No, you aren't. Anony never really claimed to be defending sadism. He is attempting to speak about a spectrum of activites described by the (extremely general) umbrella term, 'BDSM,' and you are characterising what he defends as sadism, and than spouting off about how sadism is bad.
But you are sure that you are right, which in my experience is the source of half of all faulty logic in the world, at the least. Feeling good about being able to spot logical phallacies, Sparty? Turn that powerful lens inward, huh?
