View Single Post
Old 12-03-2009, 09:26 PM
Posts: n/a

Somehow, that translated into challenging Mono's world view. Now if that world view is that having monogamous mind means perceiving things that have nothing to do with monogamy differently than a poly mind, then I will most certainly challenge that because that not only speaks to his mind, but it speaks to how other minds perceive things. Which is exactly what Mono did in reply when I said that his reasoning made no sense:

Again, me:
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.
Mono's reply:
Of course it doesn't to are not mono wired.
I maintain that whether I am mono or poly wired has nothing to do with how I see a book.

If that world view is that being mono wired means that the concept of loving more than one person just doesn't happen like it may with being poly wired, then no, of course I wouldn't challenge that.

Now after Mono rejoined the thread, he clarified that a mono person would be more threatened by a book about open relationships than a poly person. I argued that point later in the thread that I still don't see that as a mono vs poly wiring. You can refer to the thread for that.

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.
Unfortunately, this is a grey area. First, if by attack you mean pointing out things you think as wrong with a statement, then I would disagree with that definition. Second, regardless of why it is mistaken as an attack, it doesn't change the fact that it was indeed mistaken. That does not mean that person didn't see it as an attack.

Last edited by Ceoli; 12-03-2009 at 09:48 PM.
Reply With Quote