Mono wiring vs. poly wiring

[Joreth]

Originally Posted by LovingRadiance

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?

[Joreth]

Originally Posted by LovingRadiance

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.

[LovingRadiance]

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.

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.

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by YGirl

This is proper usage of E-prime again which makes a huge difference to the accuracy of a statement.

I looked it up as you suggested. Thanks.

[Joreth]

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.

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by Joreth

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.

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by Joreth

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.

[Joreth]

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.

[LovingRadiance]

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...

[Joreth]

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.