Mono wiring vs. poly wiring

in order to stop that we need to understand the pitfalls and trenches that we will face in order to reach the big guy's side, because reaching his side peacefully is key to being able to stop him from hating us. Many people hate what they fear and fear what they don't personally know to be safe.

So, saying that he's part of a group that is fundamentally and inherently different than us, and will see everything & read everything in a totally different light because of his biology is the way to do that?
 
I get that just fine. But at the same time-attacking a minority (and in THIS forum mono IS the minority) is NOT going to get that point across. It's only going to promote the idea that poly people are assholes.

What part of "monogamous people are not inherently insecure" is "attacking the minority"? Last I checked, standing up for people was not included in the definition of "attack".

And for the record, I'm an asshole because I'm an asshole, not because I'm poly.
 
This is a false analogy because, and I repeat, strength actually IS a characteristic of the category, whereas one's insecurity is not a characteristic of the category of monogamous wiring. A better analogy would be to say that GENERALLY "women are not as good at math as men" however-there ARE women who are better at math and there ARE men who are not as good at math, because math skills are not actually linked to gender AND it's not true that women are not as good at math than men as a general trend. That would be the same kind of logical fallacy. The two traits are not connected to each other and they are not even correlated coincidentally.

I didn't say a thing about insecurity. Not one word......

If you are so intent on reading emotion into text where that emotion doesn't exist, then it's no wonder you let a disagreement on the internet cause you such "pain" and distress.

I'm not intent on reading emotion-that is an assumption you are making based on my written word-which also shows no more certain emotion then yours. However-you make my point that if one is to COMMUNICATE effectively one has to ensure that the person they are speaking/typing etc TO has the same understanding of what the words mean as they themselves do. Otherwise-it's not communicating.

My pain-is physical-you would know that if you had read what was going on in my life. But that is not pertinent to this except to let you all know why some of my spelling and grammar has gone to hell in a hand basket.

Calling someone "pissy" is an example of an ad hominem attack because it is rude while not discussing the validity of the points being made. Even if one was being "pissy" (which is an opinion that not everyone here shares), it doesn't change the validity of the statement that Mono used a logical fallacy in his argument and is contributing to the marginalization of monogamous people here in the poly community. If you want to "bridge the gap" between polys and monos, then calling them all inherently insecure is not the way to do it.

I also doesn't make the proving of your validity any more useful to bridging that same gap. Which was MY point. I GOT from the VERY BEGINNING when I read the FIRST two posts between Ceoli and Mono what her issue was-and have no issue with THAT. But OBVIOUSLY the methodology chosen-didn't work. So continuing to repeat something that isn't being comprehended-is effectively beating your head against a wall for no reason. Amazingly enough-my approach-allowed for Mono to hear that I did care about him, his feelings, his needs etc, and that allowed for him to be willing to listen to what my thoughts are.
If anyone wants to MAKE A POINT-they need to connect to the person they are trying to communicate to FIRST. Maybe a re-reading of the communication thread would help. :rolleyes:

Your claim that something is "OBVIOUSLY an attack" is false. It is not obvious that it's an attack, nor was it even an attack.

It was obviously an attack to the person it was aimed at and it was obviously an attack to some of those watching. If it was not INTENDED to be an attack-(as happened with GS/ceoli previously) then a "wow that wasn't how I meant that, this was what I was TRYING to communicate to you" would be in order.
I have NO ISSUE with the point that marginalizing ANY group of people is unproductive and I have no issue seeing why Mono's statement was taken that way. I DID see him restate it a different way that was much more clear and explained what he MEANT-versus what he tried to communicate but failed to.
I DO have an issue with seeing what purpose there is in continuing to dig into the trench-when he's already acknowledged a better way to state it AND agreeably and peacably and lovingly tried to understand the other side. Should not BOTH sides set the example?

Sorry, but just because you feel attacked doesn't mean that anyone was actually attacking you.

I don't feel attacked-maybe you should use that communication technique we were talking about and ask me for clarification if you don't understand clearly what I'm saying.

Stop trying to make this personal, because I certainly don't care enough about you to be personally offended or to make personal judgments on your character.
See above.

I am addressing the validity of statements, regardless of who makes them. And if I think someone made a false or illogical statement, I will point it out.


And for the sake of productive communication-may I ask what your goal is? Because I clearly am NOT comprehending it.
 
My "goal" is to point out logical fallacies.

Mono made a non-sequitor.

The word "insecurity" has been thrown around throughout the entire argument.

However, you can replace "insecurity" with "close-minded" in my sentence and the point is still the same.

"I repeat, strength actually IS a characteristic of the category, whereas one's close-mindedness is not a characteristic of the category of monogamous wiring"

"I'm not intent on reading emotion-that is an assumption you are making based on my written word"
that's not an assumption, that's what you said:
"If you are too angry, hostile and pissy to be friendly in your writing"

You are assuming that the recipient of your comment is angry or hostile, which is not true. You are reading that emotion when that emotion is not felt by the person you are accusing of being angry or hostile. You have claimed that being angry, hostile or pissy was the motivation for the "unfriendliness" of the writing. If the writer does not feel angry or hostile or "pissy", then you have assumed an emotion and a motivation that does not exist.
 
Last edited:
So, saying that he's part of a group that is fundamentally and inherently different than us, and will see everything & read everything in a totally different light because of his biology is the way to do that?

No. I'm saying is fundamentally different in his beliefs than the majority of people on this board and therefore we need to attempt to bridge the gap HERE with HIM before we have ANY hope of accomplishing that on a grand scale in the real world.

And we can't do that if we just want to prove our point before making a connection with him. And we can't make a connection unless we're willing to learn where he's coming from and change the dialogue to a point where both sides can agree in order to have a "starting point" continuing to harp on where they don't agree (or seem to not agree because I happen to think it's not REALLY a disagreement but a miscommunication) isn't getting anywhere.
 
What part of "monogamous people are not inherently insecure" is "attacking the minority"? Last I checked, standing up for people was not included in the definition of "attack".

And for the record, I'm an asshole because I'm an asshole, not because I'm poly.

No. Insisting that one understands the MEANING behind someone else's statements-when it's clear that the two people aren't talking the same language and yet insisting "I'm right and your wrong" when it's possible that "I'm right and you just used badly chosen wording" ESPECIALLY when the "badly chosen wording" person ALREADY agreed that they conceded the point-is attacking them-and in this case it HAPPENS to be the minority being attacked. It would be attacking them even if they were not the minority.

Credit for honesty-not sure why you feel the need to share that-but ok.
 
First of all, his beliefs in the original question at hand (the new-ageyness of the book) are not fundamentally different from everyone else here on the board. Some people agreed, some people didn't.

Second, his personal ability to read "new-age" in a given text is STILL not a product of his "mono wiring".

In order to bridge those gaps you keep wanting to bridge, we have to get to the real reason why he read the same book that Seventh Crow read and didn't think it was too new-agey when Seventh Crow did. Chasing after false trails like thinking it's his monogamous wiring will not bring us to that point.

This debate is precisely BECAUSE we're trying to get where he's coming from. His claim that his point of view stems from his monogamous wiring is not true and therefore, not where he's coming from. It's a red herring.
 
You are assuming that the recipient of your comment is angry or hostile, which is not true. You are reading that emotion when that emotion is not felt by the person you are accusing of being angry or hostile. You have claimed that being angry, hostile or pissy was the motivation for the "unfriendliness" of the writing. If the writer does not feel angry or hostile or "pissy", then you have assumed an emotion and a motivation that does not exist.

I am not assuming that YOU (or anyone else) feels those feelings.
I am letting you know that your WRITING is angry and hostile. IF that isn't the effect you are TRYING to communicate-maybe you should rephrase your writing into a form that comes across differently.

Again-you are proving my point about communication being impossible unless BOTH parties are on the same page of understanding. I am NOT an asshole because I am an asshole or because I'm poly. I'm just not an asshole.
So maybe the problem is that because you identify that way-you choose to write in a way that promotes your own identity choice? I don't know.
If it IS how you want to come across why do you find fault in me recognizing it?
If you find my observation faulty-then please clarify what your trying to come across as... :)
 
I shared that because I am honest, and I am not giving any personal attacks, I point out the truth and I call out bullshit where either happens to be, regardless of who is saying it.

Again, I am not attacking Mono because we're talking about the issue of whether one's monogamous wiring is responsible for one's ability to read a book as new-agey or not. If he concedes that he used poor wording, and the discussion continues, that should show you that the discussion is not about HIM, it was about the topic.
 
"If you are too angry, hostile and pissy to be friendly in your writing"

=/=

your WRITING is angry and hostile

Besides that point, my writing is not angry.

"YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON!!!!" is an example of angry writing. Note the use of capital letters for an entire sentence to indicate yelling and the name calling with no content. Also note the multiple exclamation points commonly associated with emotion.

"You made a logical fallacy" is an example of emotionless writing pointing out a fact. Note the pragmatic language and lowercase letters addressing the point and not the personal character.
 
This is almost laughable..I hope others see it that way as well. "New agey" was never an issue. The statement was taken out of context, explained, and should have been dropped. Sorry to cause you such confusion Joreth.
Please let me know if there is a way to explain to you that "new-agey" means nothing to me...zero, nothing. I don't care about the term one drop. You own it, can have it. It's all yours :D
 
First of all, his beliefs in the original question at hand (the new-ageyness of the book) are not fundamentally different from everyone else here on the board. Some people agreed, some people didn't.

Second, his personal ability to read "new-age" in a given text is STILL not a product of his "mono wiring".

In order to bridge those gaps you keep wanting to bridge, we have to get to the real reason why he read the same book that Seventh Crow read and didn't think it was too new-agey when Seventh Crow did. Chasing after false trails like thinking it's his monogamous wiring will not bring us to that point.

This debate is precisely BECAUSE we're trying to get where he's coming from. His claim that his point of view stems from his monogamous wiring is not true and therefore, not where he's coming from. It's a red herring.

Except you are the only one left who doesn't "get" where he's coming from. My guess is that it's primarily because you've continued to be so caustic and come across as what you have self-identified yourself as that he wouldn't want to bother trying to explain it to you.

In fact-why should anyone waste their time trying to share any part of themselves or their understanding with someone who has already stated that they are an asshole? If an asshole is

ass⋅hole  /ˈæsˌhoʊl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [as-hohl] Show IPA
Use asshole in a Sentence
See web results for asshole
See images of asshole
–noun Vulgar. 1. anus.
2. Slang. a. a stupid, mean, or contemptible person.
b. the worst part of a place or thing.


–adjective 3. Slang. stupid, mean, or contemptible.

as defined by dictionary.com then there really is no purpose in discussing anything with you. Unless we simply like to talk to stupid, mean or contemptible people.
 
=/=


"YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON!!!!" is an example of angry writing. .

Hopefully when you grow up and decide to contribute on a mature level you will have something of value to say. I'm officially hitting ignore on your comments. You are a loose canon, a negative influence on what has been a wonderful place to share and a safe place for many. Your opinions are null and void from here on in...rant away Joreth. IGNORE.
 
Interesting that you chose to refer to a dictionary for the definition of a slang word, since slang words tend to be rather fluid in their meaning and change depending upon context and even region.

I am often considered "mean" for simply having a different point of view and maintaining it, particularly when I debate it using pragmatic language and don't immediately defer to someone's position just because they "feel bad" that I disagreed. For that definition, I heartily embrace the term.

I also really don't care what you think of me personally, since it doesn't change the validity of my statements.

reference http://thefatoneinthemiddle.typepad.com/the_fat_one_in_the_middle/2009/10/you-down-with-odd-yeah-you-know-me-.html and http://assholeskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/11/asshole-skepticism-definition-20.htmlfor a discussion on what being an "asshole" can mean & why I use it to refer to myself

Seventh Crow:
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:
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.

Again, the topic of whether someone's monogamous wiring affects one's spiritual outlook is the topic at hand, not whether or not Mono is a big poopyhead for saying it. If Mono has changed his opinion, that's great, but the topic is still worth discussing.

Hence, we are not attacking Mono, we are discussing a logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:
that was an example of what angry writing looked like. I'm sorry if you took it personally, but if I am to be accused of "angry writing" then let's all be clear on what exactly angry writing is, and nowhere in my posts did I write anything that looked like that except to serve as examples. That example was also written completely devoid of context so as to not be mistaken for a comment made specifically for this post or for anyone here. At least the following statement "is an example of angry writing" was included when I was quoted.

Would it help if I re-wrote it to say "Here is an example of 'angry writing': YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON FOR SAYING THAT THE SKY IS RED!!!!"?
 
Last edited:
::headdesk::

Wow. I am truly amazed that people are still so determined to read into what's being said like that. I've seen nothing immature about what Joreth has been posting. However, I am still seeing some pretty clear double standards.

Ah well.
 
::headdesk::

Wow. I am truly amazed that people are still so determined to read into what's being said like that. I've seen nothing immature about what Joreth has been posting. However, I am still seeing some pretty clear double standards.

Ah well.

I apologize Ceoli. I felt like we were getting back on track when the converstion went from productive to confrontational again...no fault of yours.

I don't expect peace and Love but offer it
Mono
 
I didn't see Joreth as getting confrontational. Blunt, yes, but not confrontational. There's a big difference.
 
Back
Top