A "coiller"? Is that a Canadian thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by smackie9 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
A "coiller"? Is that a Canadian thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by smackie9 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
[URL=http://www.sherv.net/] [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register][/URL]
No that is what my friend calls it....[URL=http://www.sherv.net/] [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register][/URL]
...Smackie, that would probably make his posts better. Hahaha
maybe he would like to hit the "POO" button lol
I've come to the conclusion that you're basically a woman with a really big dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by smackie9 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
No I'm a guy with big tits! lol good guess tho...Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
This post of yours, this was in response to a post of mine which actually said: "You don't have to agree or disagree; that isn't the point" right in the quote...Quote:
Originally Posted by chinagirl [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Why did you ignore that bit and carry on to tell me twice you don't have to agree with me, as if I was telling you that you do? Does that make sense? I'm sure you can see that it does not.
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.
Now, Michelle has made a point - that my "refutation of monogamy" has violated a basic principal that most of you have chosen to live your lives by ... that's a sensible point to make: the fact that if I call monogamy irrational and immoral then it is equivalent to calling all of you irrational and immoral, but there is a more constructive way to respond than they way you have been. In fact, by getting upset over it and not addressing the points at all, the message you convey is I have in fact persuaded your logical side and your feeling side is rejecting the conclusion anyway which can be a great source of conflict.
I know this causes psychic conflict because I am watching my girlfriend struggle with it right now.
My logical and feeling side are still united and I feel no conflict at all.
Just talk to your GF about this because she was the source of all this monogamous/polyamory Non sense thread to begin with. And yeah, I can feel her struggle.
nit·pick·ing
ˈnitˌpikiNG/
informal
adjective
noun: nitpicking; noun: nit-picking
1.
looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily.
"a nitpicking legalistic exercise"
noun
noun: nitpicking; plural noun: nitpickings; noun: nit-picking; plural noun: nit-pickings
1.
fussy fault-finding.
"nitpicking over tiny details"
It's not nonsense. I have rationalized it in perfectly clear terms, and so far all you've done to refute it is repeatedly call it nonsense and say you don't agree. If you told me what was nonsensical about it I could reevaluate and develop a more appropriate point of view but you're saying it's nonsensical because you don't agree which is not a very rational perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinagirl [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
It shows you're lacking the ability or willingness to think critically and detach your personal feelings from your logical reasoning.
Go back and re- read ALL my responses AGAIN.
I will do this for you as an exercise in good faith and will let you know as soon as I realize where I said something inaccurate regarding your involvement in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinagirl [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You don't have to do me that favor. As a matter of fact, I'm not even interested in your response. Just go back to Smackie's definition of nit picking.
Interesting idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinagirl [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
In my case, it's possible my girlfriend who has cheated, lied, and persisted, still believes in monogamy..... and myself, who has been forgiven and has not strayed again (such as in your example), does not.
- - - Updated - - -
ah I see... it was a trick. Ok!Quote:
Originally Posted by chinagirl [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You are not upsetting any of us. We really don't care. We don't have to justify our reasons for being monogamous to you.
This is another form of abuse on your part to manipulate and hurt your gf. She made a mistake-probably because you cheated on her, broke all her trust and she doesn't feel safe anymore. Instead of recognising that her emotional cheating is a symptom of needs that are not being met in your relationship-you dictate and tell her that from now on you can both do whatever you want. Shes struggling with this because this isn't what she wants. She wants emotional support, to feel loved, special, to trust you and feel safe knowing you wont hurt her. Since you violated all of that by cheating-she turned to another man for comfort and support
With all your intelligent fluff-you cannot see whats right in front of your eyes.
And going by your logic 50% are violated-what about the other 50% that are not?
I disagree, Michele. He made mistakes at he beginning at the relationship but didn't repeat them. She was chatting to those guys for several months from the beginning of the relationship, so there weren't his infidelity attempts that provoked her behaviour. Besides she maintained sporadic contact with them over the years.
Nor have I asked you to, and that's what you don't understand. I believe I have logically debunked monogamy as immoral and irrational and you are mistaking that for something different - i.e. me telling you that you need to justify your feelings. If you made an effort to prove me wrong logically I would entertain it but continually reiterating that you're monogamous and that's how you like it is sort of worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
This is possible except that you are overlooking the hard reality that I am not dictating anything and I am simply exercising my right to not commit to monogamy if I don't believe it's moral. I am not dragging her into it, in fact, what you aren't aware of is that I am perpetually trying to explain to her that I know she's lying to me to keep me around. It might be desperate, but it's still manipulation. I am the one being straightforward.... it's just a hard idea that people don't like.Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Valixy has done a fine job of addressing this with a clear head so I will not say a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Non-sequitur.Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Irrational and immoral... shackles worn by weak people too weak to break them.Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
It contributes to long-term emotional infidelity and resentment... people begin to hate their partners for shackling them... people lose their sense of integrity
Idiot. You can't "believe" you've logically falsified something. It's either proven or it isn't. You're either asserting or you aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Besides, what may not work for you might work perfectly well for someone else. Find some grieving old man who had been happily married for 50 years before his wife died and try telling him that it's ok, because marriage is an illogical, irrational, sexist institution and he was in shackles the entire time.
I don't claim to have falsified it so much as debunked it as and immoral and irrational way of life, friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Perhaps the grieving old man grieves because he knows it's too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
So, yes, that's exactly what you're claiming. If you really think you've debunked anything, you're a fucking tool.Quote:
debunk: v. expose the falseness or hollowness of
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
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.
Why are you continually perpetuating this abuse? (unless it's some ironic form of punishment where you feel I've 'abused' my girlfriend so I will be subjected to merciless abuse here until I repent- that's pretty much what I'm waiting for here... more accusations and conjecture)
Ha, idiot. You're the one making a claim; you're the one that has the burden of proof.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof[/url]
You're receiving infractions because nobody likes you.
I see..Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
OK well the burden of proof was indeed mine, and I did indeed supply my rationale for evaluation.
I have filled my end of the bargain. You, as the person arguing with me, have the burden of proving your points rather than just calling me names. You can call me an idiot a thousand times, and although you might be somebody here, and you will have your 'thanks' and support, you are actually hollow and empty until you put some real thought into this.
Re: infractions - so it has nothing to do with intellectual integrity at all; it is a popularity thing. I get it. OK!~ :)
You did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
This is my proof, in a sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
This is what's known as a primary axiom from which inductive reasoning may commence.
Right, except that's a load of shit. Relationships don't infringe on any right. Your ex-girlfriend was perfectly within her right to show her tits to whoever she wanted, but a rational person would have chosen not to, because it would have resulted in the pain of others.
Similarly: "it is a basic human right to work for any company he choses to. Therefore, a company that has an exclusivity clause in their contract is infringing on his basic rights."
Do you see the flaw? You can still do whatever you want, but you have to face the consequences.
Try again, junior.
Ok...Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I never said she acted outside of her rights, what gave you that idea?. That's exactly my rationale: she WAS within her rights to send pictures of her tits so WHY would I even try to ask her not to? Your remarks that a 'rational' person would not have done this, have ignored the concept that she was feeling starved for attention, and thus behaved rationally.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I disagree this is a basic human right. It's not a right to work for whomever you want (I don't have the right to be the US president) but it is a right to form emotional bonds with people (I have the right to fall in love with the US president). They are not really the same thing, are they?? No, they are not; here you have failed, but I appreciate the effort, also that you have calmed down with the abusive namecalling. At least now you're calling my ideas shit rather than attacking me personally. That makes sense to me. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Exactly. You CAN ALWAYS do whatever you want to. That's not a flaw in my reasoning it's the CRUX of my argument. It's the one moral principle that I'm anchoring to in order to induct all other moral claims. Do you see the flaw?Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Facing consequences - fine... monogamy places consequences on people who exercise this right, whereas polyamory does not. Therefore, monogamy is immoral.
yeah...Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
No, the rational decision would have been to dump your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You have the right to be the US president. You may not necessarily be able to, but you have the right to try.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Successful troll is successful.
Based on the principles of monogamy perhaps, which are inherently immoral. Let's talk more about what rationality is...Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
She wanted something she didn't have,Quote:
Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. (from Wikipedia of course)
she got it.
Ergo, rational.
To be the US president one must be born in the USA, have lived in the USA for the a total of at least 14 years, and be over 35 years of age. Everybody who fits that description has the right to be president. Considering 98-99% of humanity does not qualify, I wouldn't call it a basic human right, and I'm surprised you're continuing on with this ridiculous example.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
- - - Updated - - -
Pursuant to this discussion as a whole, we now have a working definition of "rationality" so I may reiterate why I believe monogamy is irrational.
The facts are that it's impossible to ask somebody to be exclusive and expect them to actually be exclusive. You can hope, you can judge, you can pray,.... what you can not RATIONALLY do is EXPECT somebody to be exclusive. That is OUTSIDE of the bounds of rationality and thus irrational.
The only rational thing a person can do is inform their partner of their feelings and act on their convictions.
lol, moron. We aren't talking about legal right, we're talking about ethical right. You have the ethical right because you aren't harming anyone by pursuing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Ok I see what you're saying and I will think about it.
I believe that you're equating the right to love another person (including the US president), to the right to work for whomever you want (including the US government).
So if it is inherently immoral to demand monogamy it is also inherently immoral to demand exclusivity to a job.
I guess... if this really is what you're telling me, then I agree.
Fortunately, I have no respect for the concept of staying loyal to a job so this really doesn't contradict my own personal morality at all and I can successfully incorporate your reasoning.
That's exactly my point. Nobody is forcing you to stay loyal to a job, the same way nobody is forcing you to stay loyal to a romantic partner. But if you choose to stay loyal, it's not immoral. Agreeing to exclusivity isn't immoral. Did this really need to be spelled out for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Agreeing or... more appropriately, "CHOOSING" to be exclusive isn't immoral, indeed. I didn't say that. I said it was irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Requiring exclusivity is immoral. Believing that you have the ability (to apply force to a certain end), is irrational. The only way to force somebody not to do something is to cage./shackle./restrain them in some way which is immoral.
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 fuck 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I realized this was irrational of me.