Continuation of selfies . .. ... .... ..... monogamy debunked

[masticate]

OK, so if agreeing to exclusivity isn't immoral, two people who agree to be monogamous can do so without hurting anyone, and you realize that, what the fu​ck are you even talking about?

The irrationality of believing you can actually make those demands of another. The irrationality of expecting somebody will honor this agreement. It's irrational to expect anything of anyone.

If two people consent to monogamy and choose to live their lives that way, there is no issue.

The issue is expecting somebody to be monogamous, as a request like this is asking them to SHACKLE themselves to you and your ideals... I believe that it is not a moral way of life and the fact that it is the norm is a reflection of society's irrationality/immorality at large.... the fact that there are laws in place to FORCE monogamy on people and punish people who exercise their BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS is ABSURD... and immoral.

[chinagirl]

Study by Conley, Moors, et al 2012..." Likewise, we are in no way arguing that monogamy is suboptimal. Indeed, monogamy may well be optimal among couples who, for whatever reason, desire to have only one partner. We also suspect that even for individuals in CNM (consensual non-monogamous) relationships, it may be useful to adopt monogamous practices at certain points in their relationship (such as during family transitions or in times of stress). Moreover, a perceived benefit of monogamy for participants in our study was the moral benefit—that is, many participants saw monogamy as being consistent with their religion or value system. In this article, we have focused on the practical benefits of monogamy, but even if monogamy is not preferred by particular individuals, the overall benefits of monogamy in the context of their religion, or culture, or personal value system may outweigh monogamy’s drawbacks. Thus, instead of presuming that monogamy is good or bad, we argue that the social benefits accorded to monogamy are not in step with current empirical evidence regarding its assumed superiority as a relational lifestyle."

That is the point... there is really no reason to debunk Monogamy because people will never see eye to eye in this case due to the difference in one's moral and religious belief.

This thread should end.

[Rowen]

Whether or not you personally agree with me has no bearing on whether or not you're willing or able to make a logical argument pertaining to the subject... so it's not really relevant to have this discussion about "who agrees with whom" because again, that's not the point.

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but YOU were the one who couldn't accept a logical argument with STATISTICAL DATA in the thread about women over 30 being materialistic. Vashti presented her FACTUAL EVIDENCE, and you dismissed it as "rationale." And here we are again...you present an argument that is entirely based on your sole belief, attempting to convince us of it so we agree with you. If you weren't trying to do that, you wouldn't have created another ****ing thread. You would have accepted that yours was closed and ended it.

I don't claim to have falsified it so much as debunked it as and immoral and irrational way of life, friend.

You clearly have never had a Literature class in your entire life, or else you'd know the standard dictionary definition of debunk. And, besides, you go on and on about how others don't have to agree with you...yet you try to say their arguments are flawed and that their arguments are not logical. This, "my friend," is called CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR. You're getting pissy assed again because we disagree with you, but you can't leave well enough alone. Then, in addition, you further make yourself look like a ****ing idiot by making arguments that only have enough bearing to support your own ideas and try to have us accept them as truth.

Want some good advice? And this is the ****ing best piece of wisdom you're gonna hear all century, so listen good.
Shut your mouth, sweetheart. You're making Canadians look stupid.

But you haven't done anything to prove this, you're just constantly calling me names. Even if your terminology of "falsified" is adequately applied in this instance, so what... you still haven't actually applied it adequately.

Name calling does not equal proof or being right it is called bullying. What's with that? Can't you stop?

You wanted me to cut out the long posts so I did. You wanted me to cut out the intellectual psycho-babble so I did. What is your problem, exactly, besides being a miserable twat?

Why am I receiving infractions for retaliating to accusations or attacking people's ideas but everybody else is continually getting away with making personal attacks against me? There is no intellectual integrity in this kind of debate; it's a really more of a cattle-walk.

I love how you claim that people calling you names is wrong, yet you call all of us names. lmao Oh, you have got to be the biggest ****ing idiot I've ever met on here.

And as for falsifying, I guess Webster's Dictionary isn't a factual source, right? Maybe we should quote the Bible instead. Which part was it, remind me, that said the afterlife is seventy two virgins? Perhaps, that's a piece of solid information that will support your argument no one can refute because who can defy the word of God? I mean, I see NO WAY that people can't twist the Bible's teachings to support their own, twisted morale. /heavy sarcasm.

As for the infractions, you're receiving them because you've continually been a pain in the ass to everyone on this forum, attacking their ideas and trying to control them long before any retaliation against you began. Need I point out how you treated people in your first thread before I came back to bitchslap you?

Bottom line: You have no grounds to argue anymore. You're trying to convince people of something they don't agree with and getting upset when we refute it. Come back in 10-20 years when you learn how to have an intellectual conversation and accept others for their differences in opinions. It's pretty sad that at 25 you haven't been able to accomplish that yet.

[KingZ]

Nobody demands. Two parties agree and continue based on trust. Everyone knows trust is key in relationships.

There you go, king of the straw man. Arguing against something nobody said.

[masticate]

Nobody demands. Two parties agree and continue based on trust. Everyone knows trust is key in relationships.

There you go, king of the straw man. Arguing against something nobody said.

I demanded her to stop speaking to him based on the principles of monogamy.

I realized this was irrational of me.

[Rowen]

I demanded her to stop speaking to him based on the principles of monogamy.

I realized this was irrational of me.

Controlling, as well. So, instead, you go online and try to control the beliefs of others? Awesome.

[masticate]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but YOU were the one who couldn't accept a logical argument with STATISTICAL DATA in the thread about women over 30 being materialistic. Vashti presented her FACTUAL EVIDENCE, and you dismissed it as "rationale." And here we are again...you present an argument that is entirely based on your sole belief, attempting to convince us of it so we agree with you. If you weren't trying to do that, you wouldn't have created another ****ing thread. You would have accepted that yours was closed and ended it.

Ok, you are wrong. That wasn't evidence to prove her claim. I went over it in that thread clear as day, there is no need to drag it over here with... strawman arguments, lol.

You clearly have never had a Literature class in your entire life, or else you'd know the standard dictionary definition of debunk. And, besides, you go on and on about how others don't have to agree with you...yet you try to say their arguments are flawed and that their arguments are not logical. This, "my friend," is called CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR. You're getting pissy assed again because we disagree with you, but you can't leave well enough alone. Then, in addition, you further make yourself look like a ****ing idiot by making arguments that only have enough bearing to support your own ideas and try to have us accept them as truth.

Want some good advice? And this is the ****ing best piece of wisdom you're gonna hear all century, so listen good.
Shut your mouth, sweetheart. You're making Canadians look stupid.

None of this makes sense. None of it. Go away if you're going to be a child as KingZ and I are finally talking like grown-ups.

I love how you claim that people calling you names is wrong, yet you call all of us names. lmao Oh, you have got to be the biggest ****ing idiot I've ever met on here.

^"case in point"

Anyway any instance of name calling I have committed has been in direct retaliation to another poster. So... that is a fact and you are ignoring it. Fool. I only have 100 posts or so it would be very easy to prove you wrong. There are probably three or four instances of me calling people names total and if you locate them you will see I am right about this.

As for the infractions, you're receiving them because you've continually been a pain in the ass to everyone on this forum, attacking their ideas and trying to control them long before any retaliation against you began. Need I point out how you treated people in your first thread before I came back to bitchslap you?

Please tell me why it is wrong to attack somebody's ideas but right to attack their personal character. You are backwards. Please don't threaten me with violence as I am clearly a psychopath and this will end badly for you.

Bottom line: You have no grounds to argue anymore. You're trying to convince people of something they don't agree with and getting upset when we refute it. Come back in 10-20 years when you learn how to have an intellectual conversation and accept others for their differences in opinions. It's pretty sad that at 25 you haven't been able to accomplish that yet.

Hm? I am able to have an intellectual conversation. I was having one just now with KingZ until you came back to interfere again with your inflammatory remarks and childish outburst. We were arguing about logical principles and I believe he/she even made some great points which I have credited. Bottom line, you've got no place in this discussion because you haven't demonstrated the required level of maturity to have this discussion without freaking out.

- - - Updated - - -

Thus, instead of presuming that monogamy is good or bad, we argue that the social benefits accorded to monogamy are not in step with current empirical evidence regarding its assumed superiority as a relational lifestyle.

Did you interpret this information or just assume it proved me wrong?

Allow me to interpret it.

They are saying ... monogamy is currently assumed to be superior as a lifestyle however the empirical evidence does not support this assumption.

It is a neutral point of view which does not explicitly refute or support my position or yours. Certainly not just cause to close another thread where a discussion is being had, just because you don't agree with one side. That is called FASCISM and CENSORSHIP. Are you a fascist, chinagirl?

[KingZ]

I realized this was irrational of me.

It's not irrational to hold someone to an agreement that they made. She made an agreement, and broke it.

What was irrational was you trying to figure out whether or not to force it after it had been broken. The only course of action at that point would be to terminate the relationship, which you seemed to have an extremely difficult time doing.

[Rowen]

Ok, you are wrong. That wasn't evidence to prove her claim. I went over it in that thread clear as day, there is no need to drag it over here with... strawman arguments, lol.

None of this makes sense. None of it. Go away if you're going to be a child as KingZ and I are finally talking like grown-ups.

Anyway any instance of name calling I have committed has been in direct retaliation to another poster. So... that is a fact and you are ignoring it. Fool. I only have 100 posts or so it would be very easy to prove you wrong. There are probably three or four instances of me calling people names total and if you locate them you will see I am right about this.

Please tell me why it is wrong to attack somebody's ideas but right to attack their personal character. You are backwards. Please don't threaten me with violence as I am clearly a psychopath and this will end badly for you.

Hm? I am able to have an intellectual conversation. I was having one just now with KingZ until you came back to interfere again with your inflammatory remarks and childish outburst. We were arguing about logical principles and I believe he/she even made some great points which I have credited. Bottom line, you've got no place in this discussion because you haven't demonstrated the required level of maturity to have this discussion without freaking out.

No, she told you about the divorce rates; you said she was full of shit. She gave you the material to look up. You didn't look it up.
^ Read again just to be sure.

Um, **** you- how's that for rational? Look up controlling behavior, particularly in terms of therapy. Any shrink in his right mind would have a field day with you. Just because you can't understand a logical argument doesn't mean that it's invalid. Not to mention, telling me to go away is controlling behavior. Look it up if you don't believe me.

It's sad, though, that you have only 109 posts but on a few instances (particularly back when you had less than 50) you insulted the intelligence of others without having retaliation. And when I finally called you on it, you claim now that it was "all in self-defense." You're the child. If anyone needs to go away, it's you. Case in point, Michelle23 made a blunt argument of her advice, telling you what she saw being the most suitable course of action. You insulted her intelligence.

And is that a threat? Reread my quoted section again, as you've clearly twisted the words around YET AGAIN and are claiming that I did something I never did. Obviously, I can't actually bitchslap you online, but that's what I call calling you on your bullshit. But you're threatening me now. And EVERYONE can see this, so I'm reporting you again.

It's right to point out the flaws in someone's personal character if their words don't match their actions. This is not attacking, but it is recognizing behavior which is making others uncomfortable. Right now, you're attempting to control our beliefs and getting upset when it's not working. This is making everyone uncomfortable- in one form or another (mine is being pissed off and annoyed)- and we want you to stop. Just stop.

Really, and you have? Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. What you claim to be a childish outburst is a logical argument; read it and weep. I've seen more ignorance and bigotry on here from you than from anyone else.

[chinagirl]

That is the point, there is no reason to refute or debunk anything due to one's moral and religious belief and that is why one can never see eye to eye on this topic. And I'm not a fascist, but clearly you are.

And you can never find any empirical evidence either that will support your claim about "it" being immoral and irrational. At least I presented you with a study with actual participants involved versus just debunking a belief/practice on your own without supporting evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

And obviously, you just picked a sentence out of the whole paragraph to make your conclusion. That is not how studies work by the way.

[Rowen]

And obviously, you just picked a sentence out of the whole paragraph to make your conclusion. That is not how studies work by the way.

^ My thoughts exactly. ^


I repeat... Shut your mouth, masticate. You're making Canadians look stupid.

[masticate]

It's not irrational to hold someone to an agreement that they made. She made an agreement, and broke it.

I believe that it is irrational, and your statement of facts has demonstrated this. By breaking the agreement, she has proven to me that it was irrational to make it, because I couldn't hold her to it. Cynical? Maybe. Logical? Yes.

- - - Updated - - -

No, she told you about the divorce rates; you said she was full of shit. She gave you the material to look up. You didn't look it up.
^ Read again just to be sure.

Ok...

she said: "most people under 30 aren't ready"
I said: "is that a fact?"
she said: "yes look at the divorce rates etc"
I said: "post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy"

I don't remember calling her "full of shit" but you can read it again just to be sure that is what I said since you just said it is what I said even though I'm saying it's not.

To put it another way: she claimed something as fact which has not been proven as fact and is simply an interpretation of data of which there could be many more. I asked her once if it was a fact, to be sure she thought it should be purported as fact, and she verified that it was a fact that people are not ready for marriage under 30. Do you think it's a fact based on her data? DO you have a right to decide to look at it another way?

Um, **** you- how's that for rational?

Not very.

Look up controlling behavior, particularly in terms of therapy. Any shrink in his right mind would have a field day with you. Just because you can't understand a logical argument doesn't mean that it's invalid. Not to mention, telling me to go away is controlling behavior. Look it up if you don't believe me.

This is only a guess.

It's sad, though, that you have only 109 posts but on a few instances (particularly back when you had less than 50) you insulted the intelligence of others without having retaliation. And when I finally called you on it, you claim now that it was "all in self-defense." You're the child. If anyone needs to go away, it's you. Case in point, Michelle23 made a blunt argument of her advice, telling you what she saw being the most suitable course of action. You insulted her intelligence.

That discussion ended when you had the thread closed.

I've already explained to you once in this thread that we are having a new discussion that is not about whether or not I argued with Michelle23 for calling me narcissistic. For the third and final time, Rowen, that conversation is over.

And is that a threat? Reread my quoted section again, as you've clearly twisted the words around YET AGAIN and are claiming that I did something I never did. Obviously, I can't actually bitchslap you online, but that's what I call calling you on your bullshit. But you're threatening me now. And EVERYONE can see this, so I'm reporting you again.

Good idea before I find out more.

It's right to point out the flaws in someone's personal character if their words don't match their actions. This is not attacking, but it is recognizing behavior which is making others uncomfortable. Right now, you're attempting to control our beliefs and getting upset when it's not working. This is making everyone uncomfortable- in one form or another (mine is being pissed off and annoyed)- and we want you to stop. Just stop.

I would say the exact opposite is happening, personally. Can you actually demonstrate this is what I'm trying to do? I think not.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. What you claim to be a childish outburst is a logical argument; read it and weep. I've seen more ignorance and bigotry on here from you than from anyone else.

That is a very mature point you have made I will think it through and get back to you. How about next Thursday? I would do it now but the wife says I have to take the cat for a walk.

- - - Updated - - -

That is the point, there is no reason to refute or debunk anything due to one's moral and religious belief and that is why one can never see eye to eye on this topic. And I'm not a fascist, but clearly you are.

Why am I clearly a fascist? Am I censoring people's ideas, or airing my own... in a thread I created to air my ideas in? Do I not have some protection in this thread that I have created or am I really being a Fascist for arguing my beliefs here? Am I trying to close threads that I don't agree with? Or ......... are you? I expect a lot more than this from INTPs; honestly I despise your lack of intellectual integrity, Chinagirl- to be unwilling to have a plain discussion on a sensitive issue without going red in the eyes and writing scathing, off-topic remarks, and trying to censor the entire discussion- utterly despicable. Rowen I can forgive; he simply is not a logical brain the way I am or you are (...claim to be, at any rate) or KingZ is. The latter two have been putting up a front of hate and aggression but in behind that wall there is still logic. I can respect that. The former is a pest I can not get rid of but am still affording the courtesy of a response. My patience wears thin.

And you can never find any empirical evidence either that will support your claim about "it" being immoral and irrational. At least I presented you with a study with actual participants involved versus just debunking a belief/practice on your own without supporting evidence.

I have evidence. In an evaluation of normative ethics the scientific method is not applied so rigorously, in favor of thought experiments and logical contemplation. People have to leave their feelings at the door, including me. Early in this thread there were some comments about my inability to handle such an arrangement on an emotional level but a philosophical discussion has no room for real-time emotion only abstract ethical principles which we use to determine what our emotions are.

And obviously, you just picked a sentence out of the whole paragraph to make your conclusion. That is not how studies work by the way.

You supplied one paragraph out of the whole study to make your conclusion. I don't see how picking the concluding sentence from within is a form of devious cherry-picking as the sentence I used claimed to summarize the entire study.......

- - - Updated - - -

I repeat... Shut your mouth, masticate. You're making Canadians look stupid.

This in a nutshell is why Canada thinks the Americans are stupid but we don't talk about that too much really because they make too much noise.

[chinagirl]

Ok...why don't we try this another way. Let's use your current situation since this is how the whole thread started to begin with.

Correct me if I don't get my facts straight since I am working on my iPad and I have trouble looking at your old thread.

You strayed, your GF cheated, she got caught, she lied and continues to lie despite your supporting evidence. You got hurt not so much by her cheating behavior but more on the fact that she is dishonest.

Now, I believe that when a couple enters into a relationship, there is the implicit belief and rule that both partners are going to be in a monogamous relationship unless it was explicitly agreed upon by both that they want to be in an open relationship.

You were hurt by your Gf actions because you thought she was the monogamous type. Was it fair for you to ask her to stop sending those pictures in the premise that you were in a monogamous relationship? YES.

However, she didn't stop the cheating behavior, therefore, you decided to break up with her and she begged you not to... Which led you into suggesting switching your relationship into polyamory. She said you can do it, however, she wants to remain monogamous (which in your heart you have trouble believing her because of her past actions and behavior). But for you to want to do it, she has to agree.

Now the question is, is it irrational for you to ask her to sleep with other men even if she does not believe in it? YES.

If that's the case, what is the middle ground in which both of you can be in a fair and satisfying relationship?

If you do as she says, you being allowed to have other women in your life while she practices monogamy, my guess is, it's only a matter of time until she becomes jealous of these other women and won't tolerate the behavior and eventually breaks up with you. That's one end to your story.

The other ending would be to break up with her now and find someone with the same values and beliefs as you do.

Alternate ending? Your guess is as good as mine.

[KingZ]

I believe that it is irrational, and your statement of facts has demonstrated this. By breaking the agreement, she has proven to me that it was irrational to make it, because I couldn't hold her to it. Cynical? Maybe. Logical? Yes.

Doesn't make sense. You can't really hold anyone to any agreement. So if what you're saying was true, all agreements involving trust are irrational. Obviously bullshit.

[HeartIsAching]

You're all suckers for the troll... with the possible exception for KingZ. He might be just playing along.