Opponents of Polyamory -- Present Your Arguments

[Alceste]

yes, I have witnessed many of your confrontations. I rather look forward to reading your posts. But, I would not describe many of your confrontations as non-defensive. Though you may be rightly defending against illogical arguments, you are certainly not responding in an open and accepting manner. But, as drole pointed out, this could be for very good reason and the culmination of various threads.

You are correct. I am not at all respectful of or open to foolish, irrational or bigoted arguments, or of factual claims for which evidence is not provided.

I think "defensive" is the wrong word for it since I don't feel at all offended, hurt or threatened by arguments of this nature. I just don't suffer foolishness gladly, and I don't believe bigotry merits my respect.

 

[Alceste]

I would actually propose that it's nowadays fully possible to understand people who are different from you, to be literally placed in someone else's shoes.

Literally?

 

[Curious George]

Actually, I did.

You may be able to conceptualize, but unless your poly, black, gay, woman, etc. etc. there are just somethings you aren't going to fully understand.

You still don't understand why that argument is illogical. It okay.

 

[Drolefille]

Literally?

Well the thrift store's a good place to start. Although the hyperbolic use of the word literally is being bent here, I don't think that's what RW meant.

 

[Alceste]

Well the thrift store's a good place to start. Although the hyperbolic use of the word literally is being bent here, I don't think that's what RW meant.

I'm hoping for clarification. The "these days" and "literally" intrigued me. Sounds like he's talking about some fancy technology I've never heard of. Total Recall memory implants or something.

I spent countless hours talking to homeless people in an effort to fully understand what homelessness is like, and I still don't know what it's like. So I can accept the argument that you can't really speak authoritatively about the experience of any demographic you don't belong to yourself.

 

[Curious George]

You are correct. I am not at all respectful of or open to foolish, irrational or bigoted arguments, or of factual claims for which evidence is not provided.

I think "defensive" is the wrong word for it since I don't feel at all offended, hurt or threatened by arguments of this nature. I just don't suffer foolishness gladly, and I don't believe bigotry merits my respect.

Now this is just me being defensive... But I hope none of this adjectives were directed at me.

My point is that while I am not likely to agree with the whole anti hedonist in solidarity for the working class argument, but I will at least try to understand the perspective from which such arguments stem. That said, we all have our triggers to which we stop trying to understand and react. Complete dismissal of perspectives comes off as defensive. Regardless of whether they are silly or foolish, if they are honest thoughts then an open respectful approach would be to understand, and discuss. Possibly even debate. While you do not feel "defensive" is it possible that you are nevertheless defensive?

 

[Drolefille]

I'm hoping for clarification. The "these days" and "literally" intrigued me. Sounds like he's talking about some fancy technology I've never heard of. Total Recall memory implants or something.

I spent countless hours talking to homeless people in an effort to fully understand what homelessness is like, and I still don't know what it's like. So I can accept the argument that you can't really speak authoritatively about the experience of any demographic you don't belong to yourself.

I feel like I can speak on behalf of my clients, but not for them, if that makes sense? Which means to an otherwise unaware group I'll speak up and share what I've learned from their experiences, but if someone who has been there knows more I'll shut up and let their own experiences speak.

 

[Drolefille]

Now this is just me being defensive... But I hope none of this adjectives were directed at me.

My point is that while I am not likely to agree with the whole anti hedonist in solidarity for the working class argument, but I will at least try to understand the perspective from which such arguments stem. That said, we all have our triggers to which we stop trying to understand and react. Complete dismissal of perspectives comes off as defensive. Regardless of whether they are silly or foolish, if they are honest thoughts then an open respectful approach would be to understand, and discuss. Possibly even debate. While you do not feel "defensive" is it possible that you are nevertheless defensive?

I think the problem is that some of us feel like they're not respectful or open comments in the first place, and we've tried responding that way to no avail, so why bother if minds aren't going to change anyway. Not going to bother trying to convince Westboro Baptists that gays are awesome either.

 

[Curious George]

I'm hoping for clarification. The "these days" and "literally" intrigued me. Sounds like he's talking about some fancy technology I've never heard of. Total Recall memory implants or something.

I spent countless hours talking to homeless people in an effort to fully understand what homelessness is like, and I still don't know what it's like. So I can accept the argument that you can't really speak authoritatively about the experience of any demographic you don't belong to yourself.

you do understand that is just your experience. ironically you are projecting your self discovered inability onto others, who are by definition a group to which you don't belong. What makes this particular argument extra amusing is that you are claiming to understand anothers perspective after admitting that you cannot fully understand anothers perspective.

 

[Alceste]

Now this is just me being defensive... But I hope none of this adjectives were directed at me.

My point is that while I am not likely to agree with the whole anti hedonist in solidarity for the working class argument, but I will at least try to understand the perspective from which such arguments stem. That said, we all have our triggers to which we stop trying to understand and react. Complete dismissal of perspectives comes off as defensive. Regardless of whether they are silly or foolish, if they are honest thoughts then an open respectful approach would be to understand, and discuss. Possibly even debate. While you do not feel "defensive" is it possible that you are nevertheless defensive?

The specific argument you are talking about is little more than a playground taunt smothered in sophistry. I'll take intolerance as my reaction to such nonsense, but not defensiveness. Unless you're talking about defending minorities of any kind from shameless bigotry. Of that, I'm guilty as charged.

 

[Riverwolf]

Literally?

Well the thrift store's a good place to start. Although the hyperbolic use of the word literally is being bent here, I don't think that's what RW meant.

I'm hoping for clarification. The "these days" and "literally" intrigued me. Sounds like he's talking about some fancy technology I've never heard of. Total Recall memory implants or something.

I spent countless hours talking to homeless people in an effort to fully understand what homelessness is like, and I still don't know what it's like. So I can accept the argument that you can't really speak authoritatively about the experience of any demographic you don't belong to yourself.

I actually do pretty much mean as literally as it gets, and it's only going to get more literal in the next decade.

Here's just a small sample of what I'm talking about:

Auti-Sim - An Indie Strategy/Sim Game | Game Jolt

I assure you that it's accurate.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Clearly, succinctly, without personal attack and if you are going to claim something, please back it up with evidence.

Go.

I'm not against polyamory entirely, but I am against 'certain' ways that I've seen it practiced. I can agree with polyamorists that it is possible to have romantic love for more than one person. What I don't agree with is if they're open to letting any number of partners in and out like a revolving door. I bring this point up because of how loosely I tend to hear some of the popular polyamory couples talking about bringing in another person. Polyamory practiced with this attitude may be indicative of a problem with commitment.

 

[Drolefille]

I'm not against polyamory entirely, but I am against 'certain' ways that I've seen it practiced. I can agree with polyamorists that it is possible to have romantic love for more than one person. What I don't agree with is if they're open to letting any number of partners in and out like a revolving door. I bring this point up because of how loosely I tend to hear some of the popular polyamory couples talking about bringing in another person. Polyamory practiced with this attitude may be indicative of a problem with commitment.

It can, although the fact that there is typically some amount of commitment going on already suggests that "commitment" isn't the problem. Typically it seems that it's more about what the primary couple is actually looking for - and sometimes that isn't really poly, it's essentially swinging or an open relationship. It doesn't mean they have a general commitment problem though.