I argue that while it is on a continuum, it is also binary and that every being in some way shape or form is having their consent violated.
Sociopaths less so. Sociopaths still think that THEY are having a good day and someone else is having a bad day. Empaths cannot have a good day if anyone is having a bad day.
There are exceptions in our current plan to consent violation… you’re violating the consent of a rapist to send them to prison for raping someone. This is called the speaking out and doing something about abuse exception.
People have on occasion stated that I’m violating their consent by laying into them about their abuses…
That falls within the exception. And to be practical, how hurt were you… seriously… by me laying into you.
I find the scariest thought others have about my teaching that nobody wants their consent violated in any way, shape or form… and everyone in some way shape or form is having their consent violated, is that it shatters their fantasy of existence being good for even one person. And they can’t handle this psychologically.
People also are known to appraise themselves as better than they are…
I shatter this as well when I describe the pleasurable exclusive access problem… meaning: while you’re having a great time, it’s definitely shattering someone else’s heart.
“That falls within the exception. And to be practical, how hurt were you… seriously… by me laying into you.”
me no says:
Not at all, in fact anyone and everyone that has read me should know of my preoccupation with pain as pleasure, based on the inverted paradigm of sense & sensuality.
Not at all, in fact anyone and everyone that has read me should know of my preoccupation with pain as pleasure, based on the inverted paradigm of sense & sensuality.
No worries there, EC.
—————
Ecmandu replies…
That makes you an empathic sadist. If you aren’t feeling pain, you need the pain of others to keep you happy.
Yes you are . the paradigmn appears revers, and that sense of appearence inverts the transcendental hypothesis: where immanence and their transcendence do not translate as. Contrradictistory.
Why not?
Because patent language simulated latent meaning. Simulation tries to mirror both, according to visual effect, but what if really does is invert the paradigm into appearent paradox.
The paradox tries to reduce meaning into it’s familiar description. That is why masochism. Such as violating of someone else’s pleasure, but in fact it only violates someone else’s perception of a formative development fro pain to pleasure, corresponding to the laws of singular exclusion of the middle.
There is nothing consensual about such procesd, especially in cased where the pain’s cause is external , and it needs to be felt as if it was farther to be sensed, to become a sensible method of conditions of survival.
Abused children do this and extend it to adulthood, and even moralize it: Such morally justified truism can be found in Jesus’ parables :
1 love your enemies
2 if someone slaps you, offer the other cheek.
That’s why I agree with the premises that consent violation is on a continuum and still binary