Search results

I appreciate the effort and hard work it takes to moderate a discussion forum, especially when things get heated and emotions get riled up. There is often nothing a mod can do that won't piss someone off when they step in to cool things down. This is why I take the time to explain my opinions...

.

Except that most people don't realize when they themselves have fallen victim to social conditioning. 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...

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.

The issue is not against Mono personally. The issue is with the phrase "fascinating 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...

Once again: Seventh Crow: Mono:

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.

Funnily enough, I did look these trends, specifically. So I'll repeat myself with this context to make it clear. The difference among men and the difference among women is significantly greater than the difference between men and women. Even for those traits culturally associated with the...

Thank you for the clarification on the book and the specific quote, Ceoli My comments regarding my feelings on The Ethical Slut are just as valid for Love Without Limits. I also think it's too new-agey, and it is not my poly-ness that makes me think that way. It's my rationality, since that's...

In your example, strength is actually a defining feature of the category, and therefore not a non-sequitur (although, again, the differences between the genders are much smaller than the differences among each gender). However, I am a female who works in manual labor, so I have often been...

The following will not work for everyone. It takes an incredible amount of security in oneself and in one's relationship for this method to work and it is just not to everyone's taste. But you asked how we would deal, so I'm answering how I would deal. Personally, I don't sweat anything my...

Whether the "wiring" is biological, social conditioning, or anything else, is irrelevant. Mono made a statement connecting two unrelated events. He claimed that his monogamousness was responsible for how he perceived the new-ageyness of a book. This is a factually incorrect and logically...

Wait, no, I get it. MONO PEOPLE ARE ALL CLOSE-MINDED AND STUPID AND IGNORANT There, maybe now you will see that I'm saying the exact opposite. For the truly clueless ... this is called sarcasm

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...

Um, hello. Mono is the person saying that all monogamous people are close-minded. Both Ceoli and I are trying to say that he shouldn't stereotype people like that. How many times do I need to say it, and how big of font should I use to get it through your head that what we're saying is MONO...

Woohoo! Give redpepper a cookie! Yes, saying "monogamous people are close-minded" is a stereotype based on a non-sequitur-- 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.

Thanks, Bob. I've made a study of logical fallacies, and that is what Ceoli was trying to do-- point out a logical fallacy.

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...

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...

As someone already said, POLYGAMY is multiple marriages with no reference to gender. POLYGYNY is multiple wives and POLYANDRY is multiple husbands. None of these words references the presence or absence of love, nor do they reference religion or social values. I see a lot of people here...