Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-29-2009, 11:55 PM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

How many times does Ceoli need to quote him before you stop accusing people of not reading what he wrote and "ostracizing" him?

He made a logically fallacious and factually incorrect statement. His statement was addressed, not his character. He chose to leave.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-30-2009, 01:03 AM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
He claimed that his monogamousness was responsible for how he perceived the new-ageyness of a book.

.
Well I said I would be lurking, so here I am for a bit.

Joreth, we're new to each other so I see no reason to immediately become argumentative with you. If you can quote anywhere on this or the original book recommendation thread where I mentioned anything about any book being new-ageyness I will agree with you. You might want to see Seventh Crows comments right after mine. Please feel free to read the rest of the post and provide your comments based on your thinking. That I can respect.

Here is the link

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1096

Peace and Love, Joreth..and welcome to the forums
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-30-2009, 01:45 AM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-30-2009, 01:52 AM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

The issue is not against Mono personally. The issue is with the phrase "funny how a mono mind can look at the same words differently" within the context of spirituality.

One's monogamousness has nothing to do with how one will interpret an issue of spirituality.

I don't care if it is Mono who made that statement, or the Pope, or Albert Einstein. That's an argument from popularity or authority.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER WHO SAID THE WORDS.

The statement is incorrect factually and it is a logical fallacy called a non-sequitor. The statement is wrong no matter who says it. I am addressing the statement and I have said nothing about the character of the person who said it.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-30-2009, 02:32 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
I was lurking on here primarily to make sure no one attacked Redpepper and secondly to see how badly I am being mis-quoted or partially quoted to fit the arguments of people.
What the hell?? Why on earth would anyone be attacking Redpepper or slandering you??

I dealt with the highlighted portion of your quote way back in the thread:

Quote:
Despite the fact that he acknowledges that not all mono people think the way he is, he continues to claim that it is his mono nature that is the thing that causes him to read a book differently or not be open to an idea is an awful big claim to be making. If he attributes those things to monogamy then it would follow that the same mechanisms are in place for everyone who is wired mono, even if the results aren't the same. The fact is, that's not the case. So if not everyone who is wired mono has the same differences that Mono claims it would then follow that it is something OTHER than the mono nature that causes such differences. To say that the mono nature is causing those differences is creating a fictitious divide between mono and poly people.

Why do you have to keep making this about some kind of attack on you??

Sheesh!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-30-2009, 02:41 AM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

Here, maybe this will help.

Not an attack:
Your statement was incorrect.

An attack:
You lying sack of shit, you're just an asshole who can't string two words together.

Please make note of the difference.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-30-2009, 02:50 AM
constlady constlady is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 63
Default

Clearly I'm not as educated or intelligent or logical as some of the members on this board but I saw Mono's comment quite differently.

I saw him labeling himself, as I've often seen him do in my short time here, without attempting to label others per se.

I connect many aspects of my being together and call them, in general, my nature. They may or may not be interconnected, they may or may not stand up to a logic test, I may choose to try to change some of them if I decide they no longer represent who I choose to be, but they are aspects of self that I identify with labels as a shortcut to that social convention known as conversation.

While I do fully grasp the dangers of using such shortcuts, I personally find it far more satisfying to do so in the interests of sharing true conversations with others so that I might gain from their perspectives than to become hung up on the semantics in what is usually intended to be a casual chat.

The need to demonstrate that others are wrong in order to prove my own rightness happens to be one aspect of self that I gave up years ago when I realized it no longer served who I choose to be.

When I've found myself continually repeating the same words, usually in a louder and louder voice, declaring that no one understands what I am really trying to say, I've often found that others do indeed understand, they simply disagree with what I'm saying.

Clearly, there is disagreement in this thread. The label that I saw as taken from one person's shortcut description about his own nature somehow morphed into a dangerous and threatening idea to a community at large.

Most of us here are intelligent enough to realize that stereotypes and generalizations are not good things.

Most of us also realize that none of us can speak as any sort of representation of any other living being except ourselves.

Those things seem to have gotten lost in this thread and it's a shame.
It could have been a wonderful opportunity to discover how others view the pieces of themselves that they identify as "polyamorous" or "monogamous."
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-30-2009, 03:00 AM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

Quote:
Most of us here are intelligent enough to realize that stereotypes and generalizations are not good things.
Except that most people don't realize when they themselves have fallen victim to social conditioning.

Quote:
Most of us also realize that none of us can speak as any sort of representation of any other living being except ourselves.
Judging by the number of times people who use sweeping statements like "what women want" and "guys are just X" and "monogamous people are Y", I'd have to say that doesn't seem to be the case.

Quote:
It could have been a wonderful opportunity to discover how others view the pieces of themselves that they identify as "polyamorous" or "monogamous."
And had we been actually talking about anything that had to do with being monogamous or polyamorous, you'd be correct. But whether a person reads a book and thinks it is new-agey or not has nothing at all to do with whether that person is polyamorous or monogamous.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-30-2009, 03:59 AM
Quath Quath is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 504
Default

Now that I see Mono's quote:
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. Not that all monos see things my way.
It seems pretty clear that he is talking about his own personal viewpoint and showing what may have influenced him to see things in a certain way. He is not saying all monogamous people see things this way. From his personal experience, he sees this as an influence. In effect, it sounds like he is saying "In my mono mind..."
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-30-2009, 04:03 AM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

Quote:
That only emphasizes the logical fallacy in your original statement Mono. If not all mono people see things your way, then it can't be your monogamous mind that is the cause of your perception of the book, which was the original point of dissent of this whole stupid thing.
.
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 12:31 AM.