View Single Post
Old 12-02-2009, 10:15 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,510

This is a false analogy because, and I repeat, strength actually IS a characteristic of the category, whereas one's insecurity is not a characteristic of the category of monogamous wiring. A better analogy would be to say that GENERALLY "women are not as good at math as men" however-there ARE women who are better at math and there ARE men who are not as good at math, because math skills are not actually linked to gender AND it's not true that women are not as good at math than men as a general trend. That would be the same kind of logical fallacy. The two traits are not connected to each other and they are not even correlated coincidentally.
I didn't say a thing about insecurity. Not one word......

If you are so intent on reading emotion into text where that emotion doesn't exist, then it's no wonder you let a disagreement on the internet cause you such "pain" and distress.
I'm not intent on reading emotion-that is an assumption you are making based on my written word-which also shows no more certain emotion then yours. However-you make my point that if one is to COMMUNICATE effectively one has to ensure that the person they are speaking/typing etc TO has the same understanding of what the words mean as they themselves do. Otherwise-it's not communicating.

My pain-is physical-you would know that if you had read what was going on in my life. But that is not pertinent to this except to let you all know why some of my spelling and grammar has gone to hell in a hand basket.

Calling someone "pissy" is an example of an ad hominem attack because it is rude while not discussing the validity of the points being made. Even if one was being "pissy" (which is an opinion that not everyone here shares), it doesn't change the validity of the statement that Mono used a logical fallacy in his argument and is contributing to the marginalization of monogamous people here in the poly community. If you want to "bridge the gap" between polys and monos, then calling them all inherently insecure is not the way to do it.
I also doesn't make the proving of your validity any more useful to bridging that same gap. Which was MY point. I GOT from the VERY BEGINNING when I read the FIRST two posts between Ceoli and Mono what her issue was-and have no issue with THAT. But OBVIOUSLY the methodology chosen-didn't work. So continuing to repeat something that isn't being comprehended-is effectively beating your head against a wall for no reason. Amazingly enough-my approach-allowed for Mono to hear that I did care about him, his feelings, his needs etc, and that allowed for him to be willing to listen to what my thoughts are.
If anyone wants to MAKE A POINT-they need to connect to the person they are trying to communicate to FIRST. Maybe a re-reading of the communication thread would help.

Your claim that something is "OBVIOUSLY an attack" is false. It is not obvious that it's an attack, nor was it even an attack.
It was obviously an attack to the person it was aimed at and it was obviously an attack to some of those watching. If it was not INTENDED to be an attack-(as happened with GS/ceoli previously) then a "wow that wasn't how I meant that, this was what I was TRYING to communicate to you" would be in order.
I have NO ISSUE with the point that marginalizing ANY group of people is unproductive and I have no issue seeing why Mono's statement was taken that way. I DID see him restate it a different way that was much more clear and explained what he MEANT-versus what he tried to communicate but failed to.
I DO have an issue with seeing what purpose there is in continuing to dig into the trench-when he's already acknowledged a better way to state it AND agreeably and peacably and lovingly tried to understand the other side. Should not BOTH sides set the example?

Sorry, but just because you feel attacked doesn't mean that anyone was actually attacking you.
I don't feel attacked-maybe you should use that communication technique we were talking about and ask me for clarification if you don't understand clearly what I'm saying.

Stop trying to make this personal, because I certainly don't care enough about you to be personally offended or to make personal judgments on your character.
See above.

I am addressing the validity of statements, regardless of who makes them. And if I think someone made a false or illogical statement, I will point it out.

And for the sake of productive communication-may I ask what your goal is? Because I clearly am NOT comprehending it.
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote