View Single Post
  #138  
Old 12-03-2009, 10:20 AM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,948
Lightbulb The fallacy of logic: Pt 1

This is going to be the first of a two part post with regards to the discussion on this and the related threads over the last few days. This one will deal with the discussion surrounding what was said. The other, on the other thread, will deal with how it was said.

The issue of what was said...the source of all the tears, heartache, and acrimony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeventhCrow View Post
Heh. The New Love Without Limits is a book I recommend people avoid because it has far too much New Age fluff crust to truly be useful, in my opinion.
Your comments are echoed to me by many poly people I know Seventh Crow. Fasciniating how a mono mind can look at the same words differently. Not that all monos see things my way. Thanks for giving some more ideas for reading
That was it…what does it actually say? Read the text. Read the actual words. Take particular note of three things...

“Not that all monos see things my way.” is there.
“new-ageyness”, nor any variation of those words were used by Mono.
Spirituality, close-mindedness are nowhere in the post...they were added as assumptions about the meaning later…and some other parts of the conversation. But everything stemmed from this post.

Because it is so often repeated, I will indulge this again, only because while flawed, it illustrates the interpretation that spawned all this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
Once again:
Seventh Crow:
Quote:
Heh. The New Love Without Limits is a book I recommend people avoid because it has far too much New Age fluff crust to truly be useful, in my opinion.
Mono:
Quote:
Your comments are echoed to me by many poly people I know Seventh Crow. Fasciniating how a mono mind can look at the same words differently.
Note first: “Not that all monos see things my way.” is not there.

The basic premise of this interpretation is as follows:
Assumption 1: All three sentences form single statement.
Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Premise 1: SC said this book is New Agey
Premise 2: Mono says he knows people who say the same. (Intermediate assumption: Mono agrees the book is New Agey)
Premise 3: Mono says that a mono mind sees the words (assumption: He means that book) differently (assumption: by mono mind, he must mean differently than a poly mind)

Intermediate Conclusion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
And that was the whole point of the dissent. Mono claimed that it was his monogamous nature (biological or learned is irrelevant) that made him agree with a book's new-ageyness. Ceoli and I were both pointing out that what makes a person poly or mono is not what makes Mono as an individual agree with or not agree with "new age" spirituality. Mono stood by his word choice and that was the argument.
Premise 4: Mono can’t know what all mono’s think. There are counterpoints that prove the opposite.
Therefore:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
He made a logically fallacious and factually incorrect statement.
Like I said. Basic interpretation. Certainly one way to view it. And since everyone should agree that the intermediate conclusion above would constitute a stereotype, and stereotypes are bad, because it leads to marginalization, then any expression of stereotypes must be taken to task with extreme prejudice.

It’s an understandable interpretation. One that would make some people uncomfortable, especially if they’re passionate about stereotyping, marginalization, etc.

So went the thread on it’s not so merry way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
Do I need to start pulling out the quotes again? I quoted the line 3 times (and had 2 of them deleted) and STILL there's confusion.

There was a reason I posted that quote 3 times in a row. Maybe they should have been left alone.
Reposting the same thing three times will not change that the interpretation was fallacious.
Wait for it...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
But the thing is in this wiring vs. conditioning debate, scientists haven't been able to parcel out where one stops and the other begins, so I suspect it's a combination of both for everyone. But I still don't see how a "mono" mind is going to read a book differently because they're "mono wired". That makes no sense whatsoever.
This is where having a common understanding of exactly what was meant by “Wired” might have been useful.

Mono generally talks about his ‘mono wiring’ frequently. I fully expect he believes there are others like him…where the ‘nature’ part of his mind outweighs the ‘conditioned’ part…with specific regards to monogamy. He generally talks about this mind in the possessive. It’s his mind. Since even if anyone here was a brain surgeon they could not tell us specifically how much was wired or not, then that is his view of his mind. I’d call it part of his worldview. He has a right to that worldview the same as anyone else around here…period, end, stop, without contestation.

Also like anyone else around here, if you challenge a worldview, you are in fact challenging the person. You can say you only object to his ‘statement’ all you want. If you think that statement is about mono minds meaning ‘all mono people’, and he thinks the same words mean ‘his mind’...his ‘worldview’...it can be interpreted as personal. (This will probably segway into pt2 later)

Anytime you say, “He made a logically fallacious and factually incorrect statement”
it could be interpreted as follows: “His worldview is fallacious and factually incorrect”
If there was still confusion about how attacking a statement can be mistaken for a personal attack…there you go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
Interesting that you chose to refer to a dictionary for the definition of a slang word, since slang words tend to be rather fluid in their meaning and change depending upon context and even region.
I’m glad you brought this up. It’s not just slang. It’s entire dialects…vast swathes of the language can take on different meanings, or have meanings implied because they’re commonly understood among people in the same area.

I work on different assumptions. Call it Canuck wiring or something...although it tends to be more geographically localized to the team vice the whole country:
1: If someone makes a generalization about a group of people, it is implied or understood that it doesn’t mean ‘all’. Depending on context, it may be some, many, most…but there’s always exceptions.
2: Most people don’t believe in –isms, or stereotypes anymore. Everyone knows they’ve been made wrong.
3: If someone decides to tell you what’s going through their mind as a part of a larger group to which they themselves belong, it can be presumed to only apply to those with a similar mindset.
4. People with a brain can be reasonably expected to know what conclusions would be drawn by other people who think in a similar way on a given subject.

I’ll return to the original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeventhCrow View Post
Heh. The New Love Without Limits is a book I recommend people avoid because it has far too much New Age fluff crust to truly be useful, in my opinion.
Your comments are echoed to me by many poly people I know Seventh Crow. Fasciniating how a mono mind can look at the same words differently. Not that all monos see things my way. Thanks for giving some more ideas for reading
Here’s another interpretation, one that I think I wasn’t alone in, even if not all the assumptions were exactly the same:
Assumption 1: These may be 4 distinct and separate thoughts. One does not necessarily follow from the other.
Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means His Mind, and by extension, those mono’s with similar minds/thought processes.
Premise 1: SC said this book is New Agey
Premise 2: Mono says he knows people who say the same. Period. (Premise 1 gives context to Premise 2)
Conclusion 1: Mono has poly friends who agree with SC’s opinion about a particular book.
Premise 3: Mono finds it interesting how his mind interprets things differently. (Possibly from his poly friends in premise 2)
Premise 4: “Not that all monos see things my way.” (He knows that not everyone sees things similarly to him)
Therefore:
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
I get it. I get what you are saying. I agree that two people can read the same book and take diametrically opposed viewpoints of it.
Conclusion 2: Two different people can read the same words, and have different interpretations.

Wow…I just realised that Mono proved my point here, and the entire demonstration of a saga spanning 6 days, 3 threads, and probably a couple hundred posts by a dozen members…with the very statement that everyone has been arguing over.
__________________
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb

-Imaginary Illusion

How did I get here & Where am I going?
Reply With Quote