If I say the sky is blue and you say "no it isn't", you don't have to use the words "sky" and "blue" to still be talking about the blueness of the sky, that's what the noun "it" refers to and the conjugated to-be verb "isn't" refers to. Mono didn't have to actually use the phrase "new-agey" to be discussing a book's new-ageyness if he was responding to a comment that directly references a book's new-ageyness.
If, however, I say "the sky is blue" and you say "no it isn't" and I say "you are talking about the blueness of the sky" and you then say "no, I was talking about the greeness of the grass", then you're just plain wrong for responding to a statement you are not actually addressing.
When Seventh Crow said the book is too new-agey and Mono said he didn't think it was, he was, in fact, talking about the new-ageyness of a book without ever using the word "new-agey" personally.
In Mono's later concession, he added "in my opinion any person who is wired monogamously ...". Adding "in my opinion" at the beginning of a statement does not actually change one's statement of fact into an opinion statement and does not make it immune to being incorrect. It could be "my opinion" that all redheads have a bad temper, but that opinion would still be incorrect. A statement of opinion would be "I didn't like the book". A statement of fact would be "caucasion people don't like this book" (an incorrect fact is still a statement of fact). This is a falsifiable statement, the type of which has been addressed in this thread.
In this case, "any person who is wired monogamously" would be the incorrect statement, which Ceoli went to great length to explain why one's "mono wiring" is not related to whether or not one reads a set of text and interprets it as new-agey or not, or why one's "mono wiring" does not make one close-minded or not.
There are plenty of people who are "wired monogamously" according to Mono's definition of "wired" who do not feel threatened by that book, or by poly people in general, or by a partner suggesting polyamory as an option, which suggests that it is not the monogamousness that is responsible for the feeling of threat. Whether one feels threatened or not is a matter of one's security in the relationship, not one's ability to love more than one person at a time. His statement would be more accurate if he said "any person who is insecure..." because that is a direct casual relationship between the "wiring" and the outcome of feeling threatened.
Last edited by Joreth; 12-03-2009 at 09:15 PM.