207 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

1. ) My post was there to point out the logical flaw in the structure of his argument - I used absolutes to make it easier to show.

 

Essentially, he was saying that many of the polyamorous relationships he witnessed failed, and that they should be neglected due to being prone to this.  Someone else said something to the affect of him not having enough information to say that that is always the case.  He responded by saying if he observed a number of homosexual relationships that worked, that would give him enough information to know that they can work.

 

The problem with those two statements is they aren't balanced; which is what I was pointing out.

 

 

Boiled down, the two statements look like this: 

 

1. If I see polyamorous relationships fail, then that implies that they are prone to failure.

2. If I see homosexual relationships succeed, then that implies that they have *possibility* of succeeding.

 

or, put another way:

 

If x, then y

vs

If a, then b *or* -b

 

 

When absolutes are used in place of nuances and caveats, you're not showing a logical flaw in an argument. You are introducing an argument to have a flaw with. You are misrepresenting the actual argument.

 

no's argument wasn't 'I saw a poly fail, therefore they are prone to failure.' No's argument was 'I think poly's are unstable over time because they have even more occurrences of the problems mono relationships have.' The anecdote was a supporting case for the reasoning (the reasons the poly broke), not the basis for the conclusion. Nor did his argument rely on or against the topic of homosexual relationships.

 

The technical term for arguing against a position the opponent didn't make is a strawman fallacy. The practical term for someone who claims strawman is someone else's argument when it isn't is 'liar.' I'm willing to believe you weren't intending to do the later, but that doesn't make the former any more honest.
 

 

 

2. )  I live in a predominately caucasian neighborhood.  Can I then infer all neighborhoods are like this?  No?

 

The results of a small sample size are not necessarily indicative of the results of the whole.

 

You're using absolutes again. Bad.

 

I never said they're disqualified from an opinion. When it comes to issues of representation in games, I believe it is the developer's moral obligation to pay more attention to the people who are actually affected by said representation, especially if that representation has the potential to do more harm than good.

 

I didn't even say my opinion was more valuable than notouchy's - I literally said that I could "match his claim", not supersede it.

 

This is starting to become dangerously close to a "freedom of speech!" argument.

It already is. You have repeatedly supported an argument aimed at deligitimizing a dissenting viewpoint on the basis of not belonging to a group that you yourself don't qualify for.

 

As for the developer's moral obligation, anyone who would stand to lose in the zero-sum battle that is budgeting would have equal or greater claim than you to being affected.

[KainD]

You aren't talking about love, you are talking about how people choose to express love.

They aren't the same thing

 

If you don't express it, it means nothing. 

[cronshaw]

I especially laugh when it's used as a synonym for 'healthy.'

 
Sugar and bacon are both natural
since natural means healthy
Sugar and bacon are healthy

Spoiler

does that equivocation sound about right?

[Samahl]

It already is. You have repeatedly supported an argument aimed at deligitimizing a dissenting viewpoint on the basis of not belonging to a group that you yourself don't qualify for.

 

As for the developer's moral obligation, anyone who would stand to lose in the zero-sum battle that is budgeting would have equal or greater claim than you to being affected.

 

Oh, here we go...

 

BioWare is a privately-owned company that has no obligation to weigh everybody's opinions equally. "Freedom of speech" doesn't apply here.

[Dean_the_Young]

@Dean_the_Young: Ah, I see... you didn't like that I disagreed with his opinion in the way you would've preferred. All right then.

 

Certainly. I prefer people to make logical arguments in their disagreements, not emotionally-driven flaws.

 

 

 

 

In this case, the western context doesn't matter - all notouchy claimed was that polyamorous relationships were inherently weaker. Not that western society wasn't capable of them, but that poly relationships overall tend to go badly compared to monogamous relationships.

 

The western context matters immensely for notouchy's belief of the viability of polyamory in a western context. Which he was rather obviously arguing from and in the context of, given his westernized sub-culture view of the ideal marriage.

 

 

 

 

In any event, I wasn't actually directly responding to you (I didn't bother reading through your unfunny, vaguely sexist joke argument). Rather, I addressed points that notouchy himself had raised related to the assertion that it's too difficult to divide time between your partners so that they're all satisfied. Sorry for the confusion there.

 

 

 

If you didn't read it, I'm sure you are quite well informed of just how unfunny and vaguely sexist it was.

 

Humorously, evaluating posts actually is a case of 'you have to interact with it to make a judgement of it.'

 

 

@CastonFolarus: That post is in line with my beliefs that "[w]hen it comes to issues of representation in games, I believe it is the developer's moral obligation to pay more attention to the people who are actually affected by said representation".

 

 

 

Everyone who plays a game is affected by the decisions to allocate resources for particular forms of content. Video games are limited resource scenarios, and are zero-sum tradeoffs when like-type resources (such as romance budget) are at stake. Your benefit if the loss of everyone else who wants other kinds of romance content.

[Samahl]

First you tell me I should be arguing from logic, not from emotion. Next, you say it's okay for notouchy to disregard logic because he feels like polyamory is bad because of the culture he was raised in... 'k.

 

Let me clarify: I didn't read it in full. I saw the graphic, I caught glimpses of text, that's all I needed to see. Maybe it's secretly some witty satire that isn't actually sexist if you read it all the way through, but I honestly don't care enough to find out. Let's drop this line of discussion.

 

Also, sure I guess some monogamous people might be upset if they don't get extra content all to themselves every single time, but then again, there are probably straight people who get upset about gay LIs existing and sucking up all the resources as well. For some reason, nobody seems to have a problem with disregarding the latter. I wonder why.

[KainD]

Oh, here we go...

 

BioWare is a privately-owned company that has no obligation to weigh everybody's opinions equally. "Freedom of speech" doesn't apply here.

 

Freedom of speech doesn't apply anywhere. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Do you have any examples of this? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

 

The Cold War is a fertile land, from the self-identified champions of oppressed people who became oppresive regimes to the historical trend of exceptionally incompetent governments who come into power via challenging the establishment only to run the establishment into the ground. The late Hugo Chavez's mismanagement of the Venezuelan oil industry is a modern lesson of how being a good ideologue (railing against the oppressive capitalists and oilmen) doesn't mean you can't be a horrible perspective (incapable of running a viable oil company).

 

 

Now, there are plenty of other contexts we can go into as well. The idea of the trauma-induced phobia is a great example of how being too close to something can cause a loss of rational perspective. The psychological concept of emotional icebergs is relevant. In information analysis, I've seen the difference between known unknowns and unknown knowns used to illustrate the role of unconscious bias in modeling how systems of group and people work.

[Abraham_uk]

This could be complicated to implement.

 

So lets say there are in total 12 possible love interests.

 

5 of them could be in a polyamorous relationship.

 

Maxwell

Jorian

Claire

Bonita

Kulthia

 

Bonita doesn't like Claire but really likes Jorian

Jorian likes Maxwell but isn't keen on Bonita

Bonita likes Jorian but doesn't like Claire 

Kulthia likes Jorian and Claire, but utterly despises Maxwell

 

 

The player character must navigate though the love/hate web to come up with a combination that works.

 

 

This could be pretty tricky to program.

 

 

 

Okay. What about the simplified path, where everyone likes everyone and is open to polyamorous relationships?

Then it could work, even if it's a little contrived.

[Dean_the_Young]

First you tell me I should be arguing from logic, not from emotion. Next, you say it's okay for notouchy to disregard logic because he feels like polyamory is bad because of the culture he was raised in... 'k.

 

Incorrect. I'm telling you you should argue from logic, not emotion, because you are bad at arguing from emotion. Some people can make good, passionate arguments. You make bad, emotional arguments. Stick to your strengths, or at least avoid your weaknesses.

 

Nor am I saying it's okay for notouchy to disregard logic because of the culture he was raised in. Instead, I am reminding you that the culture he was raised in is a definite aspect of his logical framework and perspective, and that considering that would be logical on your part. Bringing out an out of cultural argument (such as appealing to Venezualan indians) as a disproof of a practice in a different cultural context is a poor argument. You'd have about as much luck making an argument of Christian charity in the Middle East to devout Muslims. The Christian and Muslim ideals of charity have significant differences, and the concept of zakat carries an entirely different weight on what is 'proper' than in, say, Europe.

 

Cultural awareness and consideration are an important part of any logical and reasoned discussion of cultural practices.
 

 

Let me clarify: I didn't read it in full. I saw the graphic, I caught glimpses of text, that's all I needed to see. Maybe it's secretly some witty satire that isn't actually sexist if you read it all the way through, but I honestly don't care enough to find out. Let's drop this line of discussion.

 

No, this is actually quite funny. The image was an act of childish impertinance that pokes fun as two completely separate cultural phrases to make a mathematically correct, logical conclusion that neither was ever intended to convey.

 

You are, in effect, taking offense to punnery without even understanding the joke involved or how the offense is derived. This is making my day.
 

 

Also, sure I guess some monogamous people might be upset if they don't get extra content all to themselves every single time, but then again, there are probably straight people who get upset about gay LIs existing and sucking up all the resources as well. For some reason, nobody seems to have a problem with disregarding the latter. I wonder why.

 

Probably because you've only been on the forum for, what, a month?

 

You certainly missed the great reams of arguments between the people who supported every love interest being bisexual and the people who didn't.

[Samahl]

I think BW's best bet (at least, at first) is to have a romanceable couple, meaning you can either date one or both of them, with their relationship being firmly established beforehand.

[Dean_the_Young]

Oh, here we go...

 

BioWare is a privately-owned company that has no obligation to weigh everybody's opinions equally. "Freedom of speech" doesn't apply here.

 

Indeed. And Bioware's obligations have no bearing on your self-serving attempt to discredit and dismiss a dissenting viewpoint.

 

Bioware just doesn't have to care. You were trying to apply a nonexistent and hypocritical authority in lieu of an actual argument.

[Dean_the_Young]

I think BW's best bet (at least, at first) is to have a romanceable couple, meaning you can either date one or both of them, with their relationship being firmly established beforehand.

That would be the more difficult, costly, and buggy way to do it in terms of writing, scripting, and reactivity.

 

The simpler way (and most would agree that simplicity would be ideal on the first run) would to have two people already in a relationship for the player to join in. Then, instead of having the content and reflections for AC, BC, ABC, or None of the Above, you would only have to plan around ABC or BC.

[Samahl]

Where have I argued from emotion? As far as I can see, any argument you disagree with is me "arguing from emotion".

 

And yes, it's logical to consider that this is the framework from which his argument is built, but that does not change the fact that he is not actually using any in his arguments. That's like saying a creationist is using logic when they claim the Earth is 2000 years old because their family raised them to believe the Bible is fact.

 

And trust me, I've seen plenty of people arguing for and against the "playersexual" system. However, no one in this thread, currently, is disputing that LGBTQ+ people deserve as much representation as any straight person. I know they exist, but I'd like to think that the majority of people here are supportive of queer representation. Of course, if this assumption is wrong, no wonder people are using the same argument made for LGBTQ+ exclusion here.

[Samahl]

Indeed. And Bioware's obligations have no bearing on your self-serving attempt to discredit and dismiss a dissenting viewpoint.

 

Bioware just doesn't have to care. You were trying to apply a nonexistent and hypocritical authority in lieu of an actual argument.

 

It's a bit scary seeing how much you're reading into my posts. All I said was that BioWare should take the opinions of those being represented more seriously, because they do in fact have more at stake - there's a reason representation is so important in the first place.

 

I wish you would slow down a bit and really consider the actual words that I'm saying, not some nonexistent malice you're attributing to me for whatever reason.

[Samahl]

That would be the more difficult, costly, and buggy way to do it in terms of writing, scripting, and reactivity.

 

The simpler way (and most would agree that simplicity would be ideal on the first run) would to have two people already in a relationship for the player to join in. Then, instead of having the content and reflections for AC, BC, ABC, or None of the Above, you would only have to plan around ABC or BC.

 

Wow. I thought you weren't reading my posts, but this pretty much confirms it. I would've thought the "romanceable couple" and "relationship firmly established beforehand" parts would tip you off.

[CronoDragoon]

Wow. I thought you weren't reading my posts, but this pretty much confirms it. I would've thought the "romanceable couple" and "relationship firmly established beforehand" parts would tip you off.

 

 

I think BW's best bet (at least, at first) is to have a romanceable couple, meaning you can either date one or both of them, with their relationship being firmly established beforehand.

 

The bolded was Dean's concern, I take it. You were suggesting AB, AC, ABC, or nothing as possible permutations of this particular area of romance, as opposed to ABC or nothing, which would drastically reduce the programming/bugginess load while still maintaining a poly relationship.

[Dean_the_Young]

Where have I argued from emotion? As far as I can see, any argument you disagree with is me "arguing from emotion".

I would consider the defensive tone, arguments from identity, attempts to castigate and dismiss your opponents as enemies of the identity, and the frequent ignoral of arguments presented in favor of non-sequitors and strawmen as classic indicators of an emotional iceberg being reached. Those are typical responses when otherwise intelligent people begin to make poor counter-arguments and jump to mis-representations of their opponents wording, though admittedly I was assuming a high standard for you.

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, it's logical to consider that this is the framework from which his argument is built, but that does not change the fact that he is not actually using any in his arguments. That's like saying a creationist is using logic when they claim the Earth is 2000 years old because their family raised them to believe the Bible is fact.

 

Nah, it'd be like a person who has studied extremist Muslim propoganda and studied the history of Islam and taken some glances at a Quran coming to a conclusion that Islam has a strong militant-friendly streak.

 

It may yet be wrong (the key word being strong), but there are reasoned rationals and actual evidence to support the belief.
 

 

And trust me, I've seen plenty of people arguing for and against the "playersexual" system. However, no one in this thread, currently, is disputing that LGBTQ+ people deserve as much representation as any straight person. I know they exist, but I'd like to think that the majority of people here are supportive of queer representation. Of course, if this assumption is wrong, no wonder people are using the same argument made for LGBTQ+ exclusion here.

 

Whatever floats your boat. Of course, LGBTQ+ are the saving throw of traditional monogamy these days, often being the most dedicated to proving that LGBTQ+ can be just as committed and faithful partners as anyone else, so don't expect polygamy to be their next civil rights movement.

[Xilizhra]

I, too, am interested in this concept. And what's amazing about being a video game developer is that you don't have to throw in statistically likely relationship drama in polyamorous relationships if you don't want it to be there. Thus, it need not be.

[HK-90210]

Wow. I thought you weren't reading my posts, but this pretty much confirms it. I would've thought the "romanceable couple" and "relationship firmly established beforehand" parts would tip you off.

 

No he read it. You said "Romance one or both of them". He was arguing that Bioware should only have you able to romance the couple. No romancing one or the other. You romance the both of them, or they romance eachother. ABC, or BC. No AB, no AC.

[Dean_the_Young]

It's a bit scary seeing how much you're reading into my posts. All I said was that BioWare should take the opinions of those being represented more seriously, because they do in fact have more at stake - there's a reason representation is so important in the first place.

 

More than 'should', you claimed they have an obligation, and you repeatedly claimed that others who wouldn't be impacted should have their views considered less valid on account of being not affected (even though they were going to be affected). I disagreed with that argument, and the means of argument you attempted in support of that.

 

I am happy you are changing your argument to the more reasonable here, but let's not pretend it's retroactive.

 

 

I wish you would slow down a bit and really consider the actual words that I'm saying, not some nonexistent malice you're attributing to me for whatever reason.

 

Hanlon's Razor suffices for me. I'm just condemning a very poor argument you made the mistake of trying to defend a few times too many.

 

There's actually a deliberate point to hazing you for that, but I'll only get to see the payoff if I don't see it again in the future.

 

Wow. I thought you weren't reading my posts, but this pretty much confirms it. I would've thought the "romanceable couple" and "relationship firmly established beforehand" parts would tip you off.

 

 

The bolded was Dean's concern, I take it. You were suggesting AB, AC, ABC, or nothing as possible permutations of this particular area of romance, as opposed to ABC or nothing, which would drastically reduce the programming/bugginess load while still maintaining a poly relationship.

 

Bingo. I make no apologies for reading comprehension if the original intent itself was wrong. Otherwise, I feel I am owed an apology.

 

 

And with that likely fruitless expectation, I'm off for the day after a fun time. Cheers.

[Samahl]

I would consider the defensive tone, arguments from identity, attempts to castigate and dismiss your opponents as enemies of the identity, and the frequent ignoral of arguments presented in favor of non-sequitors and strawmen as classic indicators of an emotional iceberg being reached. Those are typical responses when otherwise intelligent people begin to make poor counter-arguments and jump to mis-representations of their opponents wording, though admittedly I was assuming a high standard for you.

 

It's not my fault that you read a "defensive tone" into my posts. I can't control how you decide to take my words. Your other accusations are, well... not true. I mean, it's already quite apparent that there have been some misunderstandings between us, but other than that? Can you actually point to anything I've said specifically that those accusations accurately describe?

 

In fact, I can think of a couple times where you've ignored my argument and moved on to nitpick something else instead.

 

Nah, it'd be like a person who has studied extremist Muslim propoganda and studied the history of Islam and taken some glances at a Quran coming to a conclusion that Islam has a strong militant-friendly streak.

 

It may yet be wrong (the key word being strong), but there are reasoned rationals and actual evidence to support the belief.

 

I'm having trouble seeing how your analogy relates to this better than mine does. Notouchy made an argument based on emotion - more specifically, his ideas of love and what it takes to have fulfilling, meaningful relationships, which echo western society's conception of romantic love quite nicely. His claim was based on a view taken for granted, with no consideration as to how society might have shaped these beliefs, and touted as universal. An example of a real life society where these beliefs are not the norm, to be used as evidence against the idea of monogamy as a universal ideal... I'm still not sure why you consider this to be a bad counterargument, to be honest. Perhaps you don't fully understand the discussion at hand?

 

Whatever floats your boat. Of course, LGBTQ+ are the saving throw of traditional monogamy these days, often being the most dedicated to proving that LGBTQ+ can be just as committed and faithful partners as anyone else, so don't expect polygamy to be their next civil rights movement.

 

I am well aware that many members of the community love to throw poly people under the bus. That's completely irrelevant though.

[Xilizhra]

Of course most relationships that fail are monogamous. This is because most relationships throughout modern(and sometimes even ancient) history are monogamous(or at least supposed to be). We humans(both male and female) tend to be pretty territorial over who we sleep with. Monogamy is an effective way to combat this territorial behavior, marriage even moreso. So when cheating occurs, the breakdown of the relationship can quickly follow. But this is not the only reason for a relationship failing, and many times there is a litany of symptoms of a poor relationship that can actually lead up to cheating. There's anger, there is neglect, there is stress, there is sickness/health issues, there is money. These are only some causes.

 

When two people get together, any one of these things can cause the breakdown relationship to fail, and when combined with one another they can cause a great deal of social and emotional destruction. This is the risk you take when getting involved with another person. It's part of the reason marriage exists. It's is to make it harder for your partner to just up and quit. It is a social and cultural incentive to work through the problems in your relationship rather than just run away because they are too hard to deal with. The social stigma of divorce, though less harsh than it was in years past, is still substantial enough to give a person pause before dumping their partner because they just don't want to deal with them anymore.

 

Monogamy is not easy. In fact, it's incredibly difficult. A committed relationship, in my opinion, is the most rewarding challenges anyone can ever attempt. But invariably the hardest. I admire a moderately happy 30-year marriage more than I do a Super Bowl ring, or the climbing of Mount Everest. The dedication and hard work that goes into a relationship like that can take everything you have mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually.

 

So why, in the name of all that is holy, would you want to double up on that kind of challenge? When you do this, you are increasing the chances for a great deal of hurt and anger. No matter how open a relationship is, you're still going to get hurt if your 'partner' wants to spend Christmas Eve with his/heryour other 'partner'. Or he/she takes him/her out to dinner one night, even if it's the only night you're off of work the whole week. Or if on a night you're feeling really horny, he/she decides to visit his/her other, other half.

 

When you have feelings for someone you're not in a relationship with, it is a test of your relationship. It is a test to see if you really love the person enough not to act on them. It is a test to see if you are truly committed to making what you already have work. Failing that test speaks a great deal about the strength of your relationship. So having a relationship with multiple people, where all parties are aware of what is going on, in my opinion is a weak relationship from the start. At least one party has already admitted that they do not wish to confine their affections to one person, no matter how deserving that one person is of their love and devotion. No matter how much he/she deserves to have that kind of loyalty.

 

THAT is why every polygamous relationship I have personally observed has failed. There's been a propensity of one party feel like they are a third wheel, left out or simply ignored over the favoring of another part of the relationship. So they stray out to someone else more willing to give them the attention they feel they deserve. Or they strike out at another member over what amounts to children fighting over a toy.

 

Now let me be clear: I'm not here to judge you, or your relationship with your significant other(s). I don't know you, I don't know who you are with or what they are like. It isn't my place to say anything about what your relationship is like.

 

But in my opinion, polygamist relationships are weak by the very nature, and do not work in the long run. Again, this is based on what I've seen. I have seen monogamist relationships break down, just as you have. But I've yet to see the love, dedication and devotion of the many long-lasting monogamous relationships I've seen be equaled by those with more than two people. And I highly doubt I never will.

 

This is why I disagree with this kind of relationship being accepted as normal, it is why I highly doubt any culture will accept the normalcy of a long-lasting, committed polygamous relationship. It is also why I don't think Bioware will be able, or willing, to portray one in their games. The story and characterization loops they would have to jump through to make it believable, along with the practical problems with implementing it within the gaming system itself, makes it a high-cost, little-reward feature they are unlikely to put in.

It is not, I think, your place to determine that this should not be accepted as normal.

 

Aside from that, I disagree with your notion that polyamory speaks of an inherent weakness. I floated the concept by my girlfriend once, as I was interested (not in anyone in particular at the time, just thinking about it as a concept); she said no, and there it was. The mere fact that I was interested in the possibility of being involved with more than one person does not diminish the fact that I was willing to put that aside for her own sake; the loyalty that's deserved is the loyalty that's desired, not some abstract concept of monogamy if it wouldn't be the optimal solution for either of you.

 

In any case, it's more or less vital for a relationship to have its participants spend a fair amount of time apart, at least enough so that they have new experiences to share with the other, so I would say there's a certain window of opportunity in which one can show affection to multiple people without going below the optimum time to spend with one.

[Samahl]

More than 'should', you claimed they have an obligation, and you repeatedly claimed that others who wouldn't be impacted should have their views considered less valid on account of being not affected (even though they were going to be affected). I disagreed with that argument, and the means of argument you attempted in support of that.

 

I am happy you are changing your argument to the more reasonable here, but let's not pretend it's retroactive.

 

I'm not changing my argument. I still do think they have a moral obligation. It's enough to disagree. You don't have to try to characterize me as some self-absorbed tyrant who only cares about their own point of view, though you do seem to have a bit of a problem with black and white thinking when it comes to people you aren't in agreement with.

 

Bingo. I make no apologies for reading comprehension if the original intent itself was wrong. Otherwise, I feel I am owed an apology.

 

I'm rather fed up with how condescending and rude you've been to me, so no, no apology. We were suggesting something very similar anyway, and though I didn't include it in the post (probably should have, I suppose), I realize that technical limitations might make it too challenging to allow you to only be with one at a time.

[movieguyabw]

 

 

no's argument wasn't 'I saw a poly fail, therefore they are prone to failure.' No's argument was 'I think poly's are unstable over time because they have even more occurrences of the problems mono relationships have.

 

 

 

But in my opinion, polygamist relationships are weak by the very nature, and do not work in the long run. Again, this is based on what I've seen.

 

I don't know, that sounds like saying "I believe that polyamorous relationships don't work, because the ones I witnessed didn't" to me.  0o

 

If I'm missing a step, please tell me.

 

Edit #2: his statement also reads as a rather absolute one, to me; just thought I'd throw that out there, since you keep harping on me in regards to "absolutes". 

 

 

 

 

Plus, from personal experience, I've seen polygamous relationships between people I know go up in smoke. Open relationships and even swinging I've seen succeed to some degree, but polyamory, not so much. They just never seem to end well for anybody. Normal relationships are hard enough to maintain as it is, with the feelings of two people to account for. Adding another person into the mix just increases the chance of the whole thing blowing up in everyone's faces. This something I have personally observed, not just conjecture.

 

Sure, he states in there his justification that adding someone else into the mix complicates things, as you suggested was his point.  Still doesn't change that he says that he feels that they "never seem to end well for anybody" and that this is based on the relationships he's witnessed.

 

Fail to see how I'm arguing against something he didn't say.  0o

 

 

I've never been in a homosexual relationship. I've observed several that work. Is my external observation still not enough to determine that homosexual relationships can work?

 

 

 

 

The anecdote was a supporting case for the reasoning (the reasons the poly broke), not the basis for the conclusion. Nor did his argument rely on or against the topic of homosexual relationships.

 

Actually, he was responding to someone's post which pointed out how he was making the "polygamist relationships are weak by their very nature.  And do not work in the long run" statement from an outsider's perspective.  (I'll quote the post in a second.  All of the quotes in this post have me rather befuddled.  0o)  His statement there had nothing to do with supporting the reasoning of his case...

 

 

At least, that's what I believe you were referring to.  If you were referring to something else please let me know.

 

Edit:

 

 

 

It's so fun reading all these comments by monogamous people about how they think polyamory is inherently flawed, even though they haven't actually ever been in any poly relationships, and their experience with it is limited to external observation.

 

---------------------

(sorry, copying and pasting the quote didn't give me the 'quote bubble', unfortunately.    )

 

 

The technical term for arguing against a position the opponent didn't make is a strawman fallacy. The practical term for someone who claims strawman is someone else's argument when it isn't is 'liar.' I'm willing to believe you weren't intending to do the later, but that doesn't make the former any more honest.

 

A) Yes, I know what a strawman fallacy is, thank you.

 

I quoted the post in question.  Still fail to see how I was misrepresenting what he said.  0o

 

 

You're using absolutes again. Bad.

 

Fine.  I still posit that the results of a small sample size is not necessarily indicative of what the total result will be.  I won't give examples because it's likely no matter what I give to support that, you'll claim I'm using absolutes.  *shrug*