Mono wiring vs. poly wiring

Person A) The sky is blue

Person B) What do you mean the sky isn't blue?

Person A) I said the sky IS blue!

Person C) You're totally wrong, the grass is definitely green.

Person A) I said the SKY is BLUE

Person D) Stop attacking me!


*To be clear, Person A in this scenario represents a person in Ceoil's position & all the other people are the types of reactions people in her position get to any statement made online
 
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with Mono personally. I could go into all sorts of speculation as to why he would want to cling to this reasoning but it's beside the point and none of my business. This has to do with putting forward ideas that create divides and that have no substantiation whatsoever

First of all, I post ideas for everyone, not just him. And it had nothing to do with his reaction to The Ethical Slut. It had to do with him suggesting the book Opening Up in the book recommendation thread. You can go back to that thread for reference. It's fine for him to process on his own and I respect that, but when he's making statements about me on the forum in a general discussion area, then discussions will happen.

I'm sorry, but this DOES look personal.

It is important for me to take this to task because any time we use fictitious reasons to create divides or to try to create different "species" of people we're actually putting whole groups of people down. That flawed reasoning is the very same reasoning that fuels sexism, racism, discrimination against gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered people and all sorts of other acts of discrimination in society.

yes, I find it very personal in fact as I didn't read anything in what anyone said that made me feel like what you say above. I wonder if you are looking for something and are finding a way to lambaste Mono in some way and if so, I wonder why?
 
yes, I find it very personal in fact as I didn't read anything in what anyone said that made me feel like what you say above. I wonder if you are looking for something and are finding a way to lambaste Mono in some way and if so, I wonder why?

I am lambasting an idea that perpetuates prejudice. Anti-oppression work is a passion of mine. The connection is very clear. To attribute one aspect of a person's wiring to another unrelated characteristic tacitly allows such prejudice and perpetuates stereotypes. It's the very same type of reasoning that suggested that white people are superior to black people. It is the very same type of reasoning that made it acceptable for women to not have positions of authority in the work place (being wired as a woman means difficulty in taking authority). It's the same type of reasoning that fuels gay bashing (men who are wired to love other men are sissies, or women who are wired to love other women aren't feminine). It's the same reasoning that perpetuates negative stereotypes about poly people (being wired poly means being sex crazed).

These are all examples of false ties between one aspect of a persons wiring and identity to other characteristics of that person that only have a loose connection at best to that wiring. The two have little to do with each other except what people assume, even if it's an assumption one is making within themselves.
 
Last edited:
I know I'm new here, but I'm gonna chime in on this one. From a strict *logical* standpoint, Joreth and Ceoli are right in calling a spade a spade or, in this case, a non-sequitor a non-sequitor. (Joreth, you ROCK!).

Weaselbob
 
When a person says "my outlook is just a part of my wiring", it typically leads to using one's "nature" as an excuse to either get out of doing something

oh honey, I'm just a guy, you can't expect me to really listen to you or talk about my feelings!​

or to categorize people for the purpose of marginalizing them

Of course a woman can't be a CEO, women get all emotional and can't really handle math, it's just their nature​

In these two cases, one's "nature" (being male or female) actually has nothing at all to do with their ability to talk about feelings, listen when someone is talking, being emotional at work, or doing math. That's called a "non-sequitor" logical fallacy. It means to connect two unrelated issues. If you want to talk about how difficult it is to pee standing up or whether a person can carry a fetus to term, then their gender would be relevant and actually influence the topic at hand.

So when a person, such as Mono, says "it's part of my monogamous nature that I have this particular worldview", this brings up those two issues. Mono could be dismissing his own responsibility by chalking things up to his "nature" when it really isn't relevant at all to whether or not he views something as "new-agey", or he could be marginalizing an entire category of people.

Or maybe he, personally, isn't *trying* to do either, but making statements like this encourage a general societal acceptance of both marginalizing categories of people and avoiding personal responsibility.

Therefore, Ceoli is attempting to discuss the greater issue that Mono happened to be the person to bring up - it isn't personal because she's discussing the topic. If anyone else happened to make the same argument, Ceoli's stance would be the same. It's not an attack against Mono, it's a position against the argument that he happened to bring up. And that is that one's monogamousness isn't related to one's spiritual outlook, so we should all take care not to make false connections like that.
 
Last edited:
I am lambasting an idea that perpetuates prejudice. Anti-oppression work is a passion of mine. The connection is very clear. To attribute one aspect of a person's wiring to another unrelated characteristic tacitly allows such prejudice and perpetuates stereotypes. It's the very same type of reasoning that suggested that white people are superior to black people. It is the very same type of reasoning that made it acceptable for women to not have positions of authority in the work place (being wired as a woman means difficulty in taking authority). It's the same type of reasoning that fuels gay bashing (men who are wired to love other men are sissies, or women who are wired to love other women aren't feminine). It's the same reasoning that perpetuates negative stereotypes about poly people (being wired poly means being sex crazed).

These are all examples of false ties between one aspect of a persons wiring and identity to other characteristics of that person that only have a loose connection at best to that wiring. The two have little to do with each other except what people assume, even if it's an assumption one is making within themselves.

What you are saying is then is that Mono is creating a stereo type of himself as mono?
 
What you are saying is then is that Mono is creating a stereo type of himself as mono?

Woo hoo! Give redpepper a cookie!

Yes, by saying "monogamous people are close-minded" that is a stereotype based on a non-sequitor - 2 unrelated traits.

It is factually false and it is socially marginalizing, even if the person making the stereotype is part of the category he is stereotyping.
 
Last edited:
When a person says "my outlook is just a part of my wiring", it typically leads to using one's "nature" as an excuse to either get out of doing something

oh honey, I'm just a guy, you can't expect me to really listen to you or talk about my feelings!​

or to categorize people for the purpose of marginalizing them

Of course a woman can't be a CEO, women get all emotional and can't really handle math, it's just their nature​

In these two cases, one's "nature" (being male or female) actually has nothing at all to do with their ability to talk about feelings, listen when someone is talking, being emotional at work, or doing math. That's called a "non-sequitor" logical fallacy. It means to connect two unrelated issues. If you want to talk about how difficult it is to pee standing up or whether a person can carry a fetus to term, then their gender would be relevant and actually influence the topic at hand.

So when a person, such as Mono, says "it's part of my monogamous nature that I have this particular worldview", this brings up those two issues. Mono could be dismissing his own responsibility by chalking things up to his "nature" when it really isn't relevant at all to whether or not he views something as "new-agey", or he could be marginalizing an entire category of people.

Or maybe he, personally, isn't *trying* to do either, but making statements like this encourage a general societal acceptance of both marginalizing categories of people and avoiding personal responsibility.

Therefore, Ceoli is attempting to discuss the greater issue that Mono happened to be the person to bring up - it isn't personal because she's discussing the topic. If anyone else happened to make the same argument, Ceoli's stance would be the same. It's not an attack against Mono, it's a position against the argument that he happened to bring up. And that is that one's monogamousness isn't related to one's spiritual outlook, so we should all take care not to make false connections like that.

I'm afraid I see this all as an attack at this point and am again bowing out.... *sigh* carry on.... I get what you are all saying, but I think it's all just mono bashing at this point and you are forgetting that someone is behind this. People are behind this. You are essentially DOING what you are saying above here Joreth at this point. and that is making poly people look bad by bashing mono's that are trying to understand us and trying to accept how their loved ones are.
 
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:
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.
 
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...
 
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:
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
 
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:
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:
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.
 
Back
Top