Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-29-2009, 04:39 AM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

Uh, hello, Mono is the person saying that all monogamous people are close-minded and both I and Ceoli are trying to say that he shouldn't stereotype people like that. How many times, and how big of font should I use to get it through your head that what we're saying is MONO PEOPLE ARE NOT CLOSE-MINDED JUST FOR BEING MONOGAMOUS?

At this point it looks like you're trying to be offended without even reading what's been said.

~The sky is blue
~Stop saying the sky isn't blue! You're attacking me!

Last edited by Joreth; 11-29-2009 at 04:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-29-2009, 04:40 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
What you are saying is then is that Mono is creating a stereo type of himself as mono?
I'm saying that he's using the same reasoning that results in such stereotypes. It's flawed reasoning for all of the above reasons listed and can have harmful consequences as was listed above.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-29-2009, 04:40 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,632
Default

Mono has officially resigned from these forums as a result of all this. I'm afraid that you will have to talk to other people on all this as I am no longer discussing anything with either of you...
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-29-2009, 04:42 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,632
Default

Joreth, I suggest in the future you read about people before jumping the gun on who you think they are.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-29-2009, 04:43 AM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

Redpepper, in the future I suggest you actually read what I wrote before chiming in with statements claiming the exact opposite of what I said.

I never made any statements at all about who Mono was, I refuted statements he made about who he thinks all monogamous people are. I don't even know if Mono is male, I'm assuming so based on other people calling him a him.

Last edited by Joreth; 11-29-2009 at 05:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-29-2009, 04:45 AM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

Wait, no, I get it.

MONO PEOPLE ARE ALL CLOSE-MINDED AND STUPID AND IGNORANT

There, maybe now you will see that I'm saying the exact opposite.

For the truly clueless ... this is called sarcasm
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-29-2009, 04:53 AM
windmarkbob windmarkbob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 19
Default

I wish Mono wouldn't leave over this. I really *think* he's seeing personal, ad hominem attacks where there aren't any. I *think* we've got a bit of a communications disconnect in that the specific statements that are being *ripped* for being logical fallacies are statements that Mono made without qualifying them in a manner that would have made them more like personal opinion based on introspection, to the best of his ability, but in the world of bb postings they were written with him making the assumption that, "damnit, that's exactly what they are, my personal opinions based on the best I've been able to figure out for ME, and I shouldn't have to qualify every friggin statement so that it follows rules of debate, just to avoid being shredded by people who don't even know me".

I have a tendency to "parse" what other people say more critically than they do, and I've had some of my own statements analyzed for accuracy and logical soundness more than once. I even ocassionally take it personally, but I sooner or later see it was more about communication styles than anything personal about me or about them. I hope Mono can look at this again, and see that that's MOST LIKELY exactly what this was. If I said anything that was taken personally or felt like a personal attack, I apologize for my coming across in that manner, since it damned sure wasn't intentional.

Wow...can ya'll step back just a hair and look at the fact that any emotional response from the other party is *IN PART* a reaction to your own emotional responses...this could get ugly and it really doesn't need to.

WeaselBob
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-29-2009, 05:00 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

I'm sorry that Mono feels the need to leave over this. I made no ad hominem attacks here. But even if he listed it as his opinion, I would still have to take it to task because while such reasonings might work well for him in sustaining his opinion, they unintentionally marginalize and as consequence hurt a whole lot of other people in the process and I can't stand by without trying to raise awareness of that.

I'm sure it was never Mono's intention to hurt people in such a way as it was never my intention to hurt Mono in such a way.

Last edited by Ceoli; 11-29-2009 at 05:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-29-2009, 05:09 AM
windmarkbob windmarkbob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 19
Default

I think he's feeling attacked for some opinions he stated that you aren't attacking, and not looking *specifically* at the particular statement/opinion that you are being critical of as a non-sequiter.

HMMMMM...after re-reading the first thread, where this started, I think I see where the 1st disconnect took place.

Neither Mono, nor Ceoli specifically defined and the definition agreed to on how they were each using the term "wired", whether biological, environmental, or a combination of both. Social conditioning by itself *could* result in being *wired* a particular way. 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. ;-)

WeaselBob

Last edited by windmarkbob; 11-29-2009 at 05:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-29-2009, 05:17 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

I don't think agreeing to a common term would have changed anything about the basic issue of the non-sequitor, but it's always good to check in and revisit such definitions.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
mono/poly, monogamous

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:27 AM.