On ABDL "Rights"

[rosalie.bent]

24 minutes ago, spark said:

I don't think there is anything that would raise concern with that.

[ungulate]

Unbelievable that you can "not see" people saying they have lost jobs, relationships, or parenting rights because of their PRIVATE lifestyles.

[WBDaddy]

23 minutes ago, ungulate said:

Unbelievable that you can "not see" people saying they have lost jobs, relationships, or parenting rights because of their PRIVATE lifestyles.

[AwakenEvil]

The problem with these ABDL "Rights" is they simply fail to understand that this fetishist has little to no bearing on your adult life other then if you allow it to dictate how you behave in open general public. Going into work and adulting and getting fired is not likely a result of you being an ABDL/BDSM/whatever kink fetishism you can imagine. Likely is a result of your shitty work ethics. Same can be said about relationships and children as well. Failure to see this as anything else just helps those that have a clear understanding how society should react to things outside the social norm. The fact

[WBDaddy]

It speaks to the culture of victim mentality.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

1 hour ago, WBDaddy said:

It speaks to the culture of victim mentality.

[WBDaddy]

1 hour ago, Christine Daryleanne said:

In the 1970's Sociologist Ira Glazier said "We are trading individual rights for group shares" and to speak to the quoted post. We ran away from "protected classes [called 'Aristocracy']" in 1776 for the reason that they would, to use the apt phrase, "lord it over" the rest of us. There are no ABDL, LGBT White, Black or Straight Rights. There are only individual rights, from which group members, because individuals exist physically and groups and classes are RELATIONAL and exist secondarily (which can be proven by Set Theory), gain rights, specifically, to be left alone to live the life they choose with the proviso that they do not impose themselves on others, who also have that right. You can take the phrase "judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin" and substitue anything for that last part and you get "live and let live" as a principle

A fellow Libertarian, I'm guessing?

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

No. a principle must be based on an "affirmative" not a philosophically negative statement. I hold the human individual, until and unless he acts badly to be an end in him or herself, which precedes the non-aggression principle. Otherwise, the principle of non-agression becomes a floating abstraction, no more or less critical than preferring chocolate to butterscotch; i.e. a matter of taste rather than of pricniple. individual rights define aggression and precede non-agression

[WBDaddy]

1 hour ago, Christine Daryleanne said:

No. a principle must be based on an "affirmative" not a philosophically negative statement. I hold the human individual, until and unless he acts badly to be an end in him or herself, which precedes the non-aggression principle. Otherwise, the principle of non-agression becomes a floating abstraction, no more or less critical than preferring chocolate to butterscotch; i.e. a matter of taste rather than of pricniple. individual rights define aggression and precede non-agression

To me the right of the individual is intertwined completely in the NAP.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Then THAT is the principle The minute you have "non" in a statement, it MUST rely on more fundamental premises since "non" only states what a thing is NOT, not what it IS, If you not the 2 great principles of Philosophy, of which the philosophy of rights is a subset and derivative, "A is A" (aka the Law if Indentity. As Bill Bellicek keeps saying "It is what it is") and it's derivative "A thing cannot be A and non-A in the same respect at the same time" (aka the "Law of Non-Contradiction" as in "you cannot have your cake and eat it"). If you do not have "A is A" then there is no context for the Law of Non-Contradiction, more often stated as "Nature does not tolerate a contradiction". You need the "A" to define what rules out the "non A" which leads to the "Law of the Excluded Middle" "A thing is either A or non A in any given aspect at any given time" (aka "either/or"). This if individuals have the inaliable right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness, however you believe those rights to be conferred, then an individual is to be treated as an end in him or herself. Therefore aggression is wrong. Now, I think the individual has those rights be being an independent entity capable and responsible to, govern and carry out one's own affairs and therefore capable of doing so in a peaceful, voluntary manner. Having this consciously known and stated explicitly forms a knowable chain of ideas starting at the "is" and leading to the "ought". So my principle of peaceful, voluntary dealings is not a floating abstraction but is rooted in the real world and my understadning of it. From my understadning, the Libertarian "Non-agression Principle exists as the root of Libertarianism. The original meaning of "libertarian" from the World Book Dictionary; 1963 edition is "the belief in free will. That Man can control his behavior by choice"

[rosalie.bent]

9 hours ago, ungulate said:

Unbelievable that you can "not see" people saying they have lost jobs, relationships, or parenting rights because of their PRIVATE lifestyles.

[WBDaddy]

52 minutes ago, rosalie.bent said:

What possible reason do you have to beleive that a private lifestyle does not affect a relationship?

[bwiannewick]

That is why I am just building my business.

[Saschadzg]

It is horrible to discover here how many consider it right to fire ABs or their daddies. Fetishists seem to be more conservative than ordinary population. In AB/DL fora you get the advice to be cured, public exposure is bad ,etc. That is other than support groups, who reinforce the behavior of their members and make them feel better by being not alone.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I, for one, do not think it is right to fire ABDL's unless they create a scene, distraction or other problem. When you are working you are on Company time and the Company dime. However, since the owner of a business is the owner and ultimately responsible, he has the right to fire whom he may, pursuent to the terms of contract

Yes, pbulic esposure is bad. Not just for ABDLs but for any fetish. This is for two reasons. 1 The space is held in common for the enjoyment of all, by expsing oneself in that manner, one is imposing themselves on others who may not care for it, so we go for a "common denominator". 2. The terms by which the matter was settled some 47 years ago was that such things were done in private among willing participants: Two things: my aphorism: Since I do not want the public in my bedroom, I do not put my bedroom in the public square. And from an anti-drunk driving ad "Your lifestyle is your business but if you take it on the road, it's everyone's business". Now, if we violate the terms of the settlement of the late '60's we validate those who said either that we are out of control and a low-grade slave to our things and/or that we cannot be trusted to use good judgement or that we are out to "take over" public spaces and culture, which they said back them. As one who lived back then, I feel betrayed by the exhibitionists because I would hate like anything to have to admit that the uptights were correct

[Saschadzg]

And kissing couples (hetero and homo) in the park

[WBDaddy]

1 hour ago, Saschadzg said:

It is horrible to discover here how many consider it right to fire ABS or their daddies. Fetishists seem to be more conservative than ordinary population. In AB/DL fora you get the advice to be cured, public exposore is bad ,etc. That is other than support groups, who reinforce the behavior of their members and make them feel better by being not alone.

Being "out" about any kink demonstrates bad judgment.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I don't think anybody minds so long as it is not out of all proportion and looks grossly sexual as in "Don't you two come up for air?", which most people would find gross or embarrassingly in bad taste. Mostly under the heading of "de trop". But that is not exhibitionism. Keep it G-rated, or PG after 22:00. This would be more a matter of mores, folkways and customs than law and more under social control

[Harumaru]

23 hours ago, WBDaddy said:

If they were in PRIVATE, how does anyone know about it in order to deny them jobs?

Ever heard of something called getting outed? All it takes is one person such as a partner finding out about your fetish and telling others about it in order to harm you. If people suffer negative consequences from and have to fear being outed as something that isn't criminal, it's a pretty clear sign that there's an issue with society when it comes to it.

[WBDaddy]

1 hour ago, Harumaru said:

Ever heard of something called getting outed? All it takes is one person such as a partner finding out about your fetish and telling others about it in order to harm you. If people suffer negative consequences from and have to fear being outed as something that isn't criminal, it's a pretty clear sign that there's an issue with society when it comes to it.

I'm frankly surprised no one raised this point sooner.

However, there is a remedy here.

[AwakenEvil]

2 hours ago, Harumaru said:

Ever heard of something called getting outed? All it takes is one person such as a partner finding out about your fetish and telling others about it in order to harm you. If people suffer negative consequences from and have to fear being outed as something that isn't criminal, it's a pretty clear sign that there's an issue with society when it comes to it.

People get outed all time for this or that behavior and society still goes on. I default back to my original answer... if you get fired it's likely because you sucks as an employee and not because you got outed at the office

[Elfy]

The fact that someone used "transage" as an actual thing shows how ridiculous the whole argument is. Borderline offensive to suggest that just because some people are transgender that they can also be "transage"... What next? Transethnic? Trans-species? I know there are tumblrinas who say they are these things and get roundly laughed at but to see it on here is a worrying trend.

Saying you are "transage" because you like acting younger than yourself is underestimating what it actually means to be transgender. People aren't transgender just because they like acting like the opposite gender. It is trivialising a real struggle just to make yourself feel special.

Yes I'm aware of the memes ("I identify as an apache attack helicopter... " etc.) but beyond jokes and offensive comments that were originally designed to marginalise transgender people they have no basis in reality.

I've been staying out of this conversation because I said my bit early on and don't want to argue about it all again but I couldn't let "transage" just slip past.

Elfy (A trans-admin)

[Nat]

1 hour ago, AwakenEvil said:

People get outed all time for this or that behavior and society still goes on. I default back to my original answer... if you get fired it's likely because you sucks as an employee and not because you got outed at the office

[drynot]

8 hours ago, AwakenEvil said:

People get outed all time for this or that behavior and society still goes on. I default back to my original answer... if you get fired it's likely because you sucks as an employee and not because you got outed at the office

[WBDaddy]

59 minutes ago, drynot said:

Even if you were fired for being AB/DL I'm sure that's not what the "official" reason would be.