|
On August 16 2017 02:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 01:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 16 2017 01:53 IgnE wrote:
i very much doubt they were similar circumstances Is polyamory uncommon where you're at? Because I've seen this happen before. Except it was moving to Idaho, not Canada. And she was pissed about them leaving. so she was considering moving to idaho?
Her girlfriend and her girlfriend's husband was moving to Idaho. She had to decide if it was worth moving for love or staying. I told her the same thing I said on this thread. She decided that love would make her like Idaho, it didn't, and she eventually broke it off to move back.
Personally, I'm unsure how much the husband cared about the "relationship" but he got to have threesomes so I can see why he'd be okay with it.
|
|
|
On August 16 2017 02:36 JimmiC wrote:Poll: When TM give examples from his life you believe them to beI've had to stop reading his posts for many reason (8) 80% 0% true completely made up (1) 10% some partially made up most completely made up (1) 10% 100% true (0) 0% 50% true with exaggeration (0) 0% 10 total votes Your vote: When TM give examples from his life you believe them to be (Vote): 100% true
(Vote): 50% true with exaggeration
(Vote): 0% true completely made up
(Vote): some partially made up most completely made up
(Vote): I've had to stop reading his posts for many reason
Relax man. Go back to your wife or something. Chill.
|
i had to say some partially made up and most completely made up. i dont think any of them are real tho. just like maybe he had a friend that moved to idaho or a friend that was dating someone who did but he clearly doesnt live in a place where polyamory is more common than monogamy. or even so common that its not noteworthy. I think ive met 2 couples ever before that were in an open relationship? and im in a pretty liberal crowd.
mind you it is a bit of a stretch to imagine him having friends
|
On August 16 2017 02:53 ComaDose wrote:
i had to say some partially made up and most completely made up. i dont think any of them are real tho. just like maybe he had a friend that moved to idaho or a friend that was dating someone who did but he clearly doesnt live in a place where polyamory is more common than monogamy. or even so common that its not noteworthy. I think ive met 2 couples ever before that were in an open relationship? and im in a pretty liberal crowd.
More common than monogamy? No.
Common enough to not be surprised by? Very much so.
It's not like I'm tripping over them hand and foot, but any scene with lots of artists is filled with them if you simply talk to people. The artist being the ones more open to chat about it.
Is it really any weirder than serial monogamist who date 2-3 people at a time before/never committing to any of them?
|
On August 16 2017 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 02:53 ComaDose wrote:
i had to say some partially made up and most completely made up. i dont think any of them are real tho. just like maybe he had a friend that moved to idaho or a friend that was dating someone who did but he clearly doesnt live in a place where polyamory is more common than monogamy. or even so common that its not noteworthy. I think ive met 2 couples ever before that were in an open relationship? and im in a pretty liberal crowd. More common than monogamy? No. Common enough to not be surprised by? Very much so. It's not like I'm tripping over them hand and foot, but any scene with lots of artists is filled with them if you simply talk to people. The artist being the ones more open to chat about it. Is it really any weirder than serial monogamist who date 2-3 people at a time before/never committing to any of them?
nope not weird no one insinuated that.
I also don't think "it could be worse" or "but other cultures hurt women too" is a good enough reason to stop striving to be better.
no one said anything about this at all either.
you were the one that called the west rapists but im glad we sorted out that you actually were trying to say that the history of women has created rape culture? or... something?
|
|
|
On August 16 2017 03:00 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 16 2017 02:53 ComaDose wrote:
i had to say some partially made up and most completely made up. i dont think any of them are real tho. just like maybe he had a friend that moved to idaho or a friend that was dating someone who did but he clearly doesnt live in a place where polyamory is more common than monogamy. or even so common that its not noteworthy. I think ive met 2 couples ever before that were in an open relationship? and im in a pretty liberal crowd. More common than monogamy? No. Common enough to not be surprised by? Very much so. It's not like I'm tripping over them hand and foot, but any scene with lots of artists is filled with them if you simply talk to people. The artist being the ones more open to chat about it. Is it really any weirder than serial monogamist who date 2-3 people at a time before/never committing to any of them? nope not weird no one insinuated that. Show nested quote +I also don't think "it could be worse" or "but other cultures hurt women too" is a good enough reason to stop striving to be better. no one said anything about this at all either. you were the one that called the west rapists but im glad we sorted out that you actually were trying to say that the history of women has created rape culture? or... something?
Strange, so why say: "polyamory is more common than monogamy. or even so common that its not noteworthy." if you were not interested to know the context?
As for consent: you literally pointed out how much worse other places are in the west as if it's an argument against improving things in the west. Why bring up things outside western culture at all when discussing how to improve western culture?
|
On August 16 2017 03:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 03:00 ComaDose wrote:On August 16 2017 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 16 2017 02:53 ComaDose wrote:
i had to say some partially made up and most completely made up. i dont think any of them are real tho. just like maybe he had a friend that moved to idaho or a friend that was dating someone who did but he clearly doesnt live in a place where polyamory is more common than monogamy. or even so common that its not noteworthy. I think ive met 2 couples ever before that were in an open relationship? and im in a pretty liberal crowd. More common than monogamy? No. Common enough to not be surprised by? Very much so. It's not like I'm tripping over them hand and foot, but any scene with lots of artists is filled with them if you simply talk to people. The artist being the ones more open to chat about it. Is it really any weirder than serial monogamist who date 2-3 people at a time before/never committing to any of them? nope not weird no one insinuated that. I also don't think "it could be worse" or "but other cultures hurt women too" is a good enough reason to stop striving to be better. no one said anything about this at all either. you were the one that called the west rapists but im glad we sorted out that you actually were trying to say that the history of women has created rape culture? or... something? Strange, so why say: "polyamory is more common than monogamy. or even so common that its not noteworthy." if you were not interested to know the context? As for consent: you literally pointed out how much worse other places are in the west as if it's an argument against improving things in the west. Why bring up things outside western culture at all when discussing how to improve western culture?
i can't actually believe you are not trolling now.
you implied you didnt get the joke because polyamory is so common where you are.
you said the west dislikes consent and i called that bullshit.
are you even having the same conversation as the rest of us?
like jesus christ dude i called you out on specifying the west by calling it a global issue and youre trying to turn that into me saying we shouldnt be striving to be better? where do you even come up with this shit my head hurts trying to understand your logic. my whole point was I'm in the west and rape is bad mmk
|
On August 16 2017 03:14 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 03:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 16 2017 03:00 ComaDose wrote:On August 16 2017 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 16 2017 02:53 ComaDose wrote:
i had to say some partially made up and most completely made up. i dont think any of them are real tho. just like maybe he had a friend that moved to idaho or a friend that was dating someone who did but he clearly doesnt live in a place where polyamory is more common than monogamy. or even so common that its not noteworthy. I think ive met 2 couples ever before that were in an open relationship? and im in a pretty liberal crowd. More common than monogamy? No. Common enough to not be surprised by? Very much so. It's not like I'm tripping over them hand and foot, but any scene with lots of artists is filled with them if you simply talk to people. The artist being the ones more open to chat about it. Is it really any weirder than serial monogamist who date 2-3 people at a time before/never committing to any of them? nope not weird no one insinuated that. I also don't think "it could be worse" or "but other cultures hurt women too" is a good enough reason to stop striving to be better. no one said anything about this at all either. you were the one that called the west rapists but im glad we sorted out that you actually were trying to say that the history of women has created rape culture? or... something? Strange, so why say: "polyamory is more common than monogamy. or even so common that its not noteworthy." if you were not interested to know the context? As for consent: you literally pointed out how much worse other places are in the west as if it's an argument against improving things in the west. Why bring up things outside western culture at all when discussing how to improve western culture? i can't actually believe you are not trolling now. you implied you didnt get the joke because polyamory is so common where you are. you said the west dislikes consent and i called that bullshit. are you even having the same conversation as the rest of us? like jesus christ dude i called you out on specifying the west by calling it a global issue and youre trying to turn that into me saying we shouldnt be striving to be better? where do you even come up with this shit my head hurts trying to understand your logic. my whole point was I'm in the west and rape is bad mmk
It is common, and for the most part I don't assume that everyone is in purely monogamous relationships because of it. And seeing as it's something that has literally happened to someone I know--it becomes even more relevant to me on an anecdotal level. Is it more common than monogamy? But monogamy is less common where I'm at than serial dating of multiple partners--something more akin to polygamy than monogamy. But maybe you still think serial monogamist or only "sort of" sleeping with multiple people at a time?
Also, you're still confusing Western Culture with the western world. Those things are not the same. Look it up.
|
On August 15 2017 23:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 18:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2017 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 07:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2017 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 04:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
First you have to define every word in that sentence. Then you have to evolve and adapt every single word. Only then can we acheive true enlightment. To answer your question, look to the changer of ways, that way the path is to follow, and so the opening occurs, the fluidity is expanded. If you are disinterested in discourse it is easy enough to simply stop speaking. If your goal is to ridicule you could simply keep it at PMs and not clutter the thread. I can be disinterested in your comments regardless, but you could at least keep your illogical comments away from the main site. That's strange. I thought you view that being cognizant and curious about why things are perceived truths is fruitful to the evolution of human understanding. That being willing to think about why we think about things in certain ways leads to a deeper understanding of ourselves. Being unwilling to accept the fluidity of human perception and understanding is mundane and simplistic. But here you are insulting and trying to shut down discourse of others. Wherein, you show yourself, as being the one truly disinterested in discourse. I can't be the only one finding it mildly amusing that you claim to have an open mind, yet seems intent on telling everybody else to shut up and trying to drown out everybody else's posts by sheer volume. I have gone days without responding, only to pick up the continuing conversation, whilst you yourself continue to insist that everybody is wrong, you hold the one truth, and spew your verbal diarrhoea everywhere. Defining the core topic of a discussion is not only important--but is the starting point of all dialogue. Until the both of you know what the topic being discussed is, there will always be empass. You are convoluting that convention by asking for definitions of base sentences at their core. And as much as linguistic phenomena's interaction with grammatic architecture interests me as a subject matter, deflecting the conversation away from its core topic in an attempt to feel intellectually superior is not only in poor taste, but does nothing to move dialogue forward. Hence why I asked that if your goal is to simply change topics without ever sticking to the subject at hand, please do so in PM so as to prevent your structureless dialogue from disrupting this thread with incoherencies. That is the opposite of silencing you by the way--unless people asking you to speak in private is what you would consider censorship. Another thing--how does asking people what they mean count as holding myself as the one truth? If I held myself to one truth I would simply be telling you what I think is true without asking for clarification, testing new argumentations, or even trying to restructure the argument as new data comes into being. That's the point of discussion--to ask questions, to ask people to look at the words they use, the truths they hold infallible and asking them why it is they think that way. It requires re-exploring things assumed to be true and actually looking at it again, not with your biased history of conclusion, but with new eyes. Don't play innocent and coy all of a sudden. We both know that you have no interest in discourse from your attempts to disparage and insult everybody else. There is no starting point of dialogue as your very dialogue is an attempt to halt discourse. In this forum, in this thread, most people are able to communicate as they use commonly used definitions, or clarify their definitions, and so communication is faciliated. In your case, you appear to have a deliberate policy of personal definitions, known only to yourself, to only be communicated one way. Wherein, this is communicated, so the dialogue can move forward, you act like a spoilt brat, stubbornly sticking to your unchanging set defintions, to the extent that you change every single other meaning of word to fit your own rigid template, in this case claiming not only a personal definition of warlord, but that of to lead, and of war itself, and every word in between used, claiming that you are the one true seeker of truth, calling everybody else stupid, when they are trying to communicate what could had been an interesting topic of discussion, but due to your egotistic urge to spew garbage, descends into your insulting of everyone else. Don't you feel ashamed or embarrassed for yourself thievingmagpie? Or are you truly oblivious? That you are the blind man you claim everybody else is? You being insulted by my statements does not make my statements malicious. As Stephen Fry says: "It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights." because, as he continues "It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." For me to ask people why they think their understanding of things is clear to them is the opposite of rigidity--what could be less rigid than someone wanting to learn more from others. What is could be less rigid than being willing to point to the inconsistencies of supposedly common understandings to try and find the deeper truth to that subject? To ask people to think of their assumptions past just their statement and to ask them how they actually use those definitions moving forward, how do their definitions work when put into practice, and how do they respond when resistance or variance occurs to that definition in order to see whether or not their understanding is wrought from their deeply thinking about the topic or simply from their assumptions of a topic is the whole point of research. To assume you don't know what you know, and to question what is assumed to be unquestionable. If people find it offensive to do that, it is not my responsibility to make them feel better about themselves. Like I just said, don't play innocent and coy all of a sudden. You insulted some other guy for pointing out your illogical ramblings. When did I say or imply was insulted by your statements? Don't just make things up. But I suppose that is your modus operandi. Is your head so fair and away from reality, that you actually think that we don't understand the words you are writing? Are you actually baffled that we are actually replying back to you pointing out inconsistencies and just sheer insanity on your part? Are you truly that oblivious to that you aren't as clever as you think you are, that whilst you are dealing disparaging comments on how close minded everybody but you are, we don't notice that you are rather ironically demanding people to shut up to let you have the last word?
|
On August 16 2017 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 23:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 18:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2017 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 07:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2017 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 04:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
First you have to define every word in that sentence. Then you have to evolve and adapt every single word. Only then can we acheive true enlightment. To answer your question, look to the changer of ways, that way the path is to follow, and so the opening occurs, the fluidity is expanded. If you are disinterested in discourse it is easy enough to simply stop speaking. If your goal is to ridicule you could simply keep it at PMs and not clutter the thread. I can be disinterested in your comments regardless, but you could at least keep your illogical comments away from the main site. That's strange. I thought you view that being cognizant and curious about why things are perceived truths is fruitful to the evolution of human understanding. That being willing to think about why we think about things in certain ways leads to a deeper understanding of ourselves. Being unwilling to accept the fluidity of human perception and understanding is mundane and simplistic. But here you are insulting and trying to shut down discourse of others. Wherein, you show yourself, as being the one truly disinterested in discourse. I can't be the only one finding it mildly amusing that you claim to have an open mind, yet seems intent on telling everybody else to shut up and trying to drown out everybody else's posts by sheer volume. I have gone days without responding, only to pick up the continuing conversation, whilst you yourself continue to insist that everybody is wrong, you hold the one truth, and spew your verbal diarrhoea everywhere. Defining the core topic of a discussion is not only important--but is the starting point of all dialogue. Until the both of you know what the topic being discussed is, there will always be empass. You are convoluting that convention by asking for definitions of base sentences at their core. And as much as linguistic phenomena's interaction with grammatic architecture interests me as a subject matter, deflecting the conversation away from its core topic in an attempt to feel intellectually superior is not only in poor taste, but does nothing to move dialogue forward. Hence why I asked that if your goal is to simply change topics without ever sticking to the subject at hand, please do so in PM so as to prevent your structureless dialogue from disrupting this thread with incoherencies. That is the opposite of silencing you by the way--unless people asking you to speak in private is what you would consider censorship. Another thing--how does asking people what they mean count as holding myself as the one truth? If I held myself to one truth I would simply be telling you what I think is true without asking for clarification, testing new argumentations, or even trying to restructure the argument as new data comes into being. That's the point of discussion--to ask questions, to ask people to look at the words they use, the truths they hold infallible and asking them why it is they think that way. It requires re-exploring things assumed to be true and actually looking at it again, not with your biased history of conclusion, but with new eyes. Don't play innocent and coy all of a sudden. We both know that you have no interest in discourse from your attempts to disparage and insult everybody else. There is no starting point of dialogue as your very dialogue is an attempt to halt discourse. In this forum, in this thread, most people are able to communicate as they use commonly used definitions, or clarify their definitions, and so communication is faciliated. In your case, you appear to have a deliberate policy of personal definitions, known only to yourself, to only be communicated one way. Wherein, this is communicated, so the dialogue can move forward, you act like a spoilt brat, stubbornly sticking to your unchanging set defintions, to the extent that you change every single other meaning of word to fit your own rigid template, in this case claiming not only a personal definition of warlord, but that of to lead, and of war itself, and every word in between used, claiming that you are the one true seeker of truth, calling everybody else stupid, when they are trying to communicate what could had been an interesting topic of discussion, but due to your egotistic urge to spew garbage, descends into your insulting of everyone else. Don't you feel ashamed or embarrassed for yourself thievingmagpie? Or are you truly oblivious? That you are the blind man you claim everybody else is? You being insulted by my statements does not make my statements malicious. As Stephen Fry says: "It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights." because, as he continues "It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." For me to ask people why they think their understanding of things is clear to them is the opposite of rigidity--what could be less rigid than someone wanting to learn more from others. What is could be less rigid than being willing to point to the inconsistencies of supposedly common understandings to try and find the deeper truth to that subject? To ask people to think of their assumptions past just their statement and to ask them how they actually use those definitions moving forward, how do their definitions work when put into practice, and how do they respond when resistance or variance occurs to that definition in order to see whether or not their understanding is wrought from their deeply thinking about the topic or simply from their assumptions of a topic is the whole point of research. To assume you don't know what you know, and to question what is assumed to be unquestionable. If people find it offensive to do that, it is not my responsibility to make them feel better about themselves. Like I just said, don't play innocent and coy all of a sudden. You insulted some other guy for pointing out your illogical ramblings. When did I say or imply was insulted by your statements? Don't just make things up. But I suppose that is your modus operandi. Is your head so fair and away from reality, that you actually think that I don't understand the words you are writing?
If I didn't think you'd understand me I wouldn't waste time writing it. Not everything you disagree with is a slight towards you.
Is repeating someone's arguments back to them insulting? Is moving forward through the logical track of someone's argument insulting? Is asking for clarifications insulting? At what point have my statements veered away from the discussion at hand? If I have not veered, then why would people be as upset as you describe. Unless I am misunderstanding you and no one has gotten upset--which is it?
|
So...you either didn't read my post, or you are incapable of turning away from your one track mind. Which is it?
|
On August 16 2017 03:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
So...you either didn't read my post, or you are incapable of turning away from your one track mind. Which is it?
More than once you've accused me of insulting you and others. The only reason you would think that is because you believe I have said something insulting--ie, you were insulted by what I said. If you had found nothing insulting in what I said, you would not accuse me of insulting both you and others.
Being insulted by someone's arguments because they don't simply appease your expectations is your issue, not mine. Being insulted by something is not a free pass to being treated special.
|
On August 16 2017 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Also, you're still confusing Western Culture with the western world. Those things are not the same. Look it up.
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here.
like not all people conform to their culture? do you have any sources i can look up the difference between western culture and western world in? as far as i understand people in the western world live in the western culture... what exactly is your point?
|
On August 16 2017 03:49 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Also, you're still confusing Western Culture with the western world. Those things are not the same. Look it up.
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. like not all people conform to their culture? do you have any sources i can look up the difference between western culture and western world in? as far as i understand people in the western world live in the western culture... what exactly is your point?
Not everyone in the western world practices western culture, much like not everyone outside of the western world sans-practice western culture.
I can practice western culture while living in China, and someone who is Chinese can practice eastern cultures while in New York.
Culture is not bound by location, but the western world is.
|
On August 16 2017 03:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 03:49 ComaDose wrote:On August 16 2017 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Also, you're still confusing Western Culture with the western world. Those things are not the same. Look it up.
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. like not all people conform to their culture? do you have any sources i can look up the difference between western culture and western world in? as far as i understand people in the western world live in the western culture... what exactly is your point? Not everyone in the western world practices western culture, much like not everyone outside of the western world sans-practice western culture. I can practice western culture while living in China, and someone who is Chinese can practice eastern cultures while in New York. Culture is not bound by location, but the western world is.
and what did i say that made you think i didnt understand that?
edit: is it cause i said im in the west and i dont like raping people? cause im a pretty stereotypical canadian and so are most of my peers and we all dont dislike consent.
|
On August 16 2017 03:53 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 03:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 16 2017 03:49 ComaDose wrote:On August 16 2017 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Also, you're still confusing Western Culture with the western world. Those things are not the same. Look it up.
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. like not all people conform to their culture? do you have any sources i can look up the difference between western culture and western world in? as far as i understand people in the western world live in the western culture... what exactly is your point? Not everyone in the western world practices western culture, much like not everyone outside of the western world sans-practice western culture. I can practice western culture while living in China, and someone who is Chinese can practice eastern cultures while in New York. Culture is not bound by location, but the western world is. and what did i say that made you think i didnt understand that? edit: is it cause i said im in the west and i dont like raping people? cause im a pretty stereotypical canadian and so are most of my peers and we all dont dislike consent.
Because western culture is not a person, it is the culture that people within it either follow or resist.
Much like not all Africans practice genital mutilation, not all Indians practice acid burning; not all Westerners are rapists. You need to be able to differentiate the ideas of a social group and the individuals within the social group; those are not the same things.
Things can occur to individuals due to the influence of cultural norms; but in the end it is all based on a choice--even if the choices is heavily skewed. You continually being unable to differentiate my problems with culture with your defensiveness with being a westerner suggests you are having a problem disassociating the two concepts. You see, you are not western culture. You and your friends are not western culture. Western culture is the space that you and your friends are inhabiting. It influences you, it blinds you, and it encourages you--but it does not define you.
|
I guess that would make the statement "the west dislikes consent" pretty misleading
|
On August 16 2017 04:57 ComaDose wrote:
I guess that would make the statement "the west dislikes consent" pretty misleading
The West, as an aggregate, is definitely fitting of that description; albeit not the west as a totality. Assuming descriptors of a place have to match the totality of that space is fairly simplistic to me. It's like saying that the west, as a totality, does not rape; the statement would also be wrong because rapes do happen.
But yes, clarification of how much of the totality is included on the descriptor should have been clarified. Apologies for the shorthand.
With that in mind--do you feel more in-sync with our stances on this discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
