KinkPodcasts.com - podcasts about BDSM, Fetish and Kink    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : M/s D/s O&P : "." 1 2 . (19) This post is on the M/s D/s O&P web board. 20 Oct 07, 9:54 PM DomainRuler US, 5 yrs Y! 921-796-720 wrote: omission is simply another form of lying. Sorry but no. From dictionary.com omission something left out, not done, or neglected: an important omission in a report. Something omitted or neglected. any process whereby sounds or words are left out of spoken words or phrases lying a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. an inaccurate or false statement. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. In other words, you would have to state something that was not truthful. If you do not speak it then it is not lying because you have not stated it. People can perceive it as another form of lying but in reality and in fact it is not. Also there is no such thing as the sin of omission as omission is not a sin. 21 Oct 07, 3:19 AM iinarihoudai US, 5 yrs DomainRuler wrote: 921-796-720 wrote: omission is simply another form of lying. Sorry but no. From dictionary.com :snip: However, the two can go together. From wikipedia: Lying by omission - Lying by omission is when an important fact is omitted, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. This includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Whether or not William meant to, he left out information. He thought it would be a good idea for he and Tangie to "go together" but failed to mention this vanilla woman. It is my opinion that he should have informed Tangie that he was planning on taking X but would still like to have her go too. So the question is Tangie would you have reacted better if William had said something along the lines of, "I'm taking X but I think it's a good idea for you to go too so we can talk about it later?" iinarihoudai "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -Jesus Christ, Hebrews 11:1 www.livejournal.com/users/dannasamanoiiko 21 Oct 07, 5:24 PM Hawklord UK, 6 yrs DomainRuler wrote: 921-796-720 wrote: omission is simply another form of lying. Sorry but no. From dictionary.com omission something left out, not done, or neglected: an important omission in a report. Something omitted or neglected. any process whereby sounds or words are left out of spoken words or phrases lying a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. an inaccurate or false statement. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. Sometimes omission can also be a deliberate attempt to deceive. Hawklord Sic volo. sic jubeo. stat pro ratione voluntas 21 Oct 07, 5:34 PM iinarihoudai US, 5 yrs isouda wrote: iinarihoudai wrote: From wikipedia: Lying by omission - Lying by omission is when an important fact is omitted, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. This includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. From an alternative point of view however, we have a 'need to know' situation here. Is it really necessary for property to know what their owner is doing? In some relationships the owner has the right to do as they please and the property has the right to accept it. From my understanding of poly relationships that, even though it may not change anything, the slave really does need to know more often that not. iinarihoudai "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -Jesus Christ, Hebrews 11:1 www.livejournal.com/users/dannasamanoiiko 21 Oct 07, 5:37 PM Yarakot 6 yrs Hi Barbara, I ran across this post of yours when I was searching for a lili quote I remembered and I thought it might add something to your current thinking. My reaction to people quoting myself back at me is to shudder and think, "OMG, did I write that? How could I be that illiterate, naive, reductionistic, or whatever." I hope that you do not think this way. If you are tempted to, please know that I quote it because it is well-thought through and well-written and I think it might help to compare today's Barbara to yesterday's Barbara and that this might help you find a path through the difficulties you are encountering. tangie wrote: I know this is going to sound hopelessly vague: often what I feel isn't a 'head choice'. It is a reaction to stimuli that is a sum total of sensory reaction. It has to do with scent, aural input, visual cues and sometimes tactile information. When faced with something William wants that isn't what my conscious self wants, my stomach starts to tense up. The conflict originates in what my modern woman self is telling me what I'm supposed to want (social conditioning)vs. what my primal self is telling me I need (what William desires). As I come into acceptance, I start relaxing and feeling better. This doesn't feel like choice in the more common sense. Perhaps choice as to fight or flight--on that more instinctual level. I note that you are currently trying to intellectually wrap your head around things that were not a "head choice" before. A salient question might be how effective it is to substitute the rational sense for this instinctual submission? Another might be how can you enlist other areas of yourself to help your brain out so that it is not the only part of you struggling to maintain the enslavement? And yet another good question might be, is it necessary to maintain enslavement from a distance or can you find a near substitute to get you through until you are back with William? And finally, is there anything that William can do to trigger this again? Carolyn "Each moment opens like a flower. The age of miracles comes every hour on the hour. Turn any corner, there's something new and nothing is too wonderful to be true." -- Launer, Shapiro, & Henning Edited 21 Oct 07, 5:38 PM by Yarakot 24 Oct 07, 7:06 PM DomainRuler US, 5 yrs Y! iinarihoudai wrote: However, the two can go together. From wikipedia: Lying by omission - Lying by omission is when an important fact is omitted, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. This includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Whether or not William meant to, he left out information. He thought it would be a good idea for he and Tangie to "go together" but failed to mention this vanilla woman. It is my opinion that he should have informed Tangie that he was planning on taking X but would still like to have her go too. So the question is Tangie would you have reacted better if William had said something along the lines of, "I'm taking X but I think it's a good idea for you to go too so we can talk about it later?" Again sorry but no. This is putting a human connotation on it. You have to take the literal meaning of the words. There can be no lying by omission. It does not fit the definition of the words. You are referring to a concept. Society wants to define it this way because they want to include it as part of lying when in fact it is not. Using wiki to back up your position is poor at best because anyone can post anything on wiki. Not a good source of facts in many cases. Again omission is omission and lying is lying. If you apply logic to this you will see they are mutually exclusive. 24 Oct 07, 7:10 PM DomainRuler US, 5 yrs Y! Hawklord wrote: Sometimes omission can also be a deliberate attempt to deceive. Hawklord I agree. But there is a difference between deceiving someone and lying to them. Those however can go together logically. deceive To cause to believe what is not true; mislead. Of course this would not include omission because you would have to tell them something to mislead them. to mislead or cause to make mistakes, usually by giving or suggesting false information. This could include omission because it would be what is not said that could be the false information that is being suggested. Using a logical union you could link omission, lying and deceiving someone but they would have to be linked with all 3. Edited 24 Oct 07, 7:12 PM by DomainRuler 16 Feb 08, 7:41 AM Sacred_Rose UK, 5 yrs tangie wrote: Actually, I don't see my "need to know" as being a positive thing for my relationship with my Master. We've had some long talks about this since the incident, and one thing I've realized is that this "need" isn't a need at all, it is a form of control. I don't want this control. I wonder why you see "need to know" as control? Or that it is somewhat "constraining" him to report? Since by getting to know the person he's dating, you'd be better equipped to deal with your jealousy. Jealousy, preys on insecurity and uncertainty. A lot of polys use full disclosure as a way of illuminate that jealousy. Once you cast a light onto something, it tends to shrink in proportions. Some serious questions need to be asked. Do you really want a poly relationship? If so, then why this insistance on Don't ask/don't tell agreement? Does she want a poly relationship? If not, then why is she dating him when he's already got you? What are her true intentions? What are yours? What are his? Perhaps a meeting with all 3 of you wouldn't be out of place. That way you can speak to her directly and not having to rely on 3rd hand information from your Master. She can get to know you and perhaps understand your D/s dynamic better. And your Master gets the chance to explain his intentions to both of you, face to face. Best of luck. 17 Feb 08, 4:51 PM luna_lux US, 4 yrs Y! tangie wrote: My "burning need to know" is, in effect, a power struggle for me, and if William were to accede to my need, and tell me what I wanted to know, then the balance of that power would shift to me. Knowing the above has not made it any easier for me to not be curious. But I find his refusal to supply me with what I think I need sexy . agreed. while my curiousity about what happens is insatiable, i'm ambivalent about whether or not i *want* to know. there are times i think it might be easier for me to be unaware of what my dominant is doing otherwise as related to other relationships, but i certainly wouldn't expect the information either. if the expectation that i knew everything existed/that he was obligated to share it with me, then the power dynamic would most certainly shift (in the wrong direction, imho). that being said, since i also function as "friend" for my dominant, it would be unrealistic to require, either, that he never tell me. for better or worse, it's his prerogative to share/not share the information. at times it's more important that he get input from me than to spare my feelings - and that's what ultimately reinforces the power dynamic correctly, rather than making it an expectation from me.