Are they white ones or non-white ones?
I'm trying to stay somewhat on-topic here.
The tree frogs and insects are brownish.
Are they white ones or non-white ones?
I'm trying to stay somewhat on-topic here.
The tree frogs and insects are brownish.
Sometimes I have a cricket in my attic, but I don't know if it's non-white.
I have done as you instructed, and the answer was, "Chirp, chirp, chirp." ... "Chirp." Hope this clears things up.
Mmmm, nice tasty social group/s.
Some tetrahydrocannabinol sounds really good right now.
Derailing is so illegal ... but so fun
At least TRY to keep up with me here. Please familiarize yourself with the concept of the negative proof.What proof do you have that there is no diversity in poly?
I say that the large majority of people who present as "polyamorous" are caucasian. That is both my direct personal experience & my observation, & thus far has been evidenced by the straw poll I've put up here. Present fact otherwise.A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an "evidence of absence" argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.
If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance.
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell ... wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
Argument from ignorance ... is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
Again, there has been no cogent argument that this is incorrect
Just to remind: I've been in the apparent minority to say there's NO SUCH THING as "the poly community."
At least TRY to keep up with me here. Please familiarize yourself with the concept of the negative proof.
I say that the large majority of people who present as "polyamorous" are caucasian. That is both my direct personal experience & my observation, & thus far has been evidenced by the straw poll I've put up here. Present fact otherwise.
You CANNOT prove the negative, a.k.a. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Someone hereabouts has cited Elisabeth Sheff as somehow representing polyamory, & Sheff has repeatedly asserted that "the polyamorous community" is anti-nonwhite, due to the overweening level of caucasians in her (now outdated) surveys. Whoever that is ought to step up & either defend Sheff properly, or denounce her & similar self-interested "research" on "the community."
Therefore, the burden is on someone else to demonstrate that I might be incorrect. Simply denouncing me as a heretic does nothing to disprove my claims.
________________
I have claimed -- rather clearly, I thought, & in somewhat simple English -- that nonwhites can be excluded from polyamory due to socioeconomic status, for instance disposable income, or lack of available personal time, or risk of being excluded from family/community/church. This is another fact (constellation, actually) overlooked by Sheff et al. The result has been a marked lack of nonwhites, & oddly NOT because of inherent first-order racism.
Again, there has been no cogent argument that this is incorrect.
Accepted, of course -- though you must be aware that there's a vast difference between a straw poll (the term has come up a couple of times in this thread) & a study.All else is speculation because the sample is too small, it's not be studied over time, and as far as i'm concerned doesn't cover enough of the world besides the USA.