Originally Posted by windmarkbob
Could be this is primarily a problem of *assumed* definitions on both sides. And while I understand that even if the terms were agreed to, it wouldn't necessarily no longer be a non sequitor in general terms, it's possible that it might not be a non-sequitor at all in terms of Mono specifically. Or is that a literal impossibility? You logicians feel free to educate me on this one. ;-)
Whether the "wiring" is biological, social conditioning, or anything else, is irrelevant. Mono made a statement connecting 2 unrelated events.
He claimed that his monogamousness was responsible for how he perceived the new-ageyness of a book.
This is a factually incorrect and logically fallacious statement. Period.
This is also dangerous ground to tread.
If you say that Trait A created in a person Trait B, then one can assume that everyone with Trait A will be likely to also have Trait B.
If you say that the reason why Sarah sucks at math is because she is female, that implies that all females suck at math because it is her femaleness that makes her bad at math.
If Trait A and Trait B really were related, for instance, if you say that Mark would be very unlikely to carry a fetus to term because he is male, those two traits really are related to each other and would therefore not be a non-sequitor.
But the fact of the matter is that regardless of whether being monogamous is a biological or learned trait, not all monogamous people are close-minded, hence, the non-sequitor. Unlike all males, which, by definition, cannot carry a fetus to term (for the sake of simplicity, the definition of "male" here does not include transgendered or hermaphrodites).
On top of that, his initial argument was that he was *more open-minded* because of his monogamousness, and then turned it around to argue that monogamous people are more close-minded than poly people.
No matter which way you look at his argument, he was making incorrect statements.
The problem is that some people cannot distinguish between saying that one's statement is wrong and saying that a person is a bad person for saying it.
Some people are so attached to their position that any dispute, particularly a well-thought-out, difficult-to-contradict dispute, feels
like a personal attack when it's not. When a person's identity is wrapped up in the claim they are making, a dissenting opinion on that claim is seen as an attack on the person making that claim.
Let's take a Christian who believes that the bible is literal and infallible and has lived his life entirely according to his interpretation of that text. If another person comes along who doesn't live exactly according to his interpretation of that text, and even dares to question its validity, that dissent is felt as a personal attack because that Christian has attached his identity to the claims he is making. In his mind, a dispute on the claim itself is an attack on his person because he has created his persona according to that claim.
And because I know some people here will not read everything I said carefully, I will say explicitly that I am not making any claims whatsoever that all Christians are like this. I am using an illustration, so if you happen to be Christian and you don't do this I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU. There are lots of different types of Christians, and that's sort of the point. There are lots of different types of monogamous people, and they are not all close-minded.
But apparently, making a statement that not all monogamous people are close-minded is mono-bashing. Maybe that's what I've been doing wrong ... sticking up for people and fighting against stereotypes is actually bashing those very people I am sticking up for!
Sorry, the sarcasm switch must be stuck in the on position tonight.