Fuck you, Diogenes, you were ignorant and rude.

All right, let’s do this, Diogenes the Cynic. You started off by announcing that only women who were raped as toddlers could ever possibly be involved in consensual polygamy. It was bad enough when you declared what healthy, feminist women never do, like you’re the fucking Emperor of Women, an attitude that doesn’t go too well with the rest of your politics. But then your rudeness and ignorance ratcheted up a level when your response to Lilairen was to ignore everything she’d said and - with a note that you knew you were being naughty but just couldn’t help yourself - turn the discussion personal because you wanted to score a totally unsupported point.

This is what’s going to happen now. You’re either going to fucking own up like a grown-up and apologize, to Lilairen and everybody else you’ve indiscriminately pissed on, for your rudeness and ignorance, with no pansy-ass qualifiers to preserve your sense of self-righteousness…or you’re going to establish the following:

That polyamory beyond one man-many women doesn’t exist, as you continue to try to ignore it.

That polyamory is inherently an unhealthy woman’s way of avoiding intimacy, as you’ve claimed, and that it leads to chaotic and unhealthy relationships.

That there is any actual, verifiable link between polyamorists and significant childhood trauma, as** Lilairen **provided cites already that there does not appear to be. (“I didn’t learn what I know on the internet” you said in one of the more blindingly stupid comments I’ve ever read from anyone on this board; because your gut tells you something, you think you can just shit all over a fucking Great Debates thread and declare that your subjective conclusions trump reality?)

That you are actually informed about this topic, and not just basing your bluster on your emotional reaction and some anecdotal evidence.

That your asking of a highly personal question in the middle of a GREAT FUCKING DEBATE, as if the answer could possibly prove anything to anyone in any fucking way, was a valid rhetorical manuever with the purpose of demonstrating your claim. Especially since you go on to reject identically valid evidence from someone who breaks your model! Please also explain how your other declarations of the obvious truth of things you can’t actually cite or even really defend are useful or welcome in that forum.

You tried to weasel around in the other thread, so I imagine you’ll do the same thing here, but I’ve made it as clear as I can. If you fail to support your actions and your argument, and you fail to apologize, I for one will lose all of the respect I once had for you, even as you continue to fight the good fight in other areas.

In other news, the Pope is Catholic!

Bear shits in woods! Film at 11!

[Johnny Carson]I did not know that[/Johnny Carson]

Q:
Is the Pope Catholic?
Does a Bear shit in the woods?
Does a one-legged duck swim in circles?
Is a frog’s ass watertight?

Does a one-legged Pope with a watertight ass shit in circles in the woods?

A:

Fuck you, Diogenes, you were ignorant and rude.

Were?

Not my premise, but agree with yours.

Sometimes ignorance fights back.

The Pope is Catholic when he thinks about it
Bears shit where ever they happen to be. Therefore, a bear in the woods does shit there.
The one-legged duck would only swim in circles until an aquatic bear, not having a rabbit handy, used him to wipe his ass. If he wiped with the legless side, the bearshit would act as ballast and the one-legged duck would swim straight.
The frog’s ass would be watertight unless he spent too much time with the Pope or other Catholic clergy.

If that’s not a perfect sig line, I don’t know what is.

You’re welcome to use it, if you’d like.

Sweet.

Does koala bear poop smell like cough drops?

Bwahahaha! Another perfect sig line! Two in one thread! Who knew?

Lilairen is the one who flipped in that thread.

DtC told her, “I’m guessing you had childhood trauma”.

She wouldn’t answer it, and then accused him of being judgmental and playing armchair shrink. He wasn’t asking her to go into therapy.

If she thought that her child trauma had nothing to do with her polyamory, she could have said, “yes, I did, but this is a decision I made independent of that.”

Sounds like everyone got a little wound up because he was close to the mark. Natural next step: Ad Hominem attack. Cf. this thread.

And, if she is going to use herself as an example of a stable, polyamorous person, then his question was perfectly appropriate. He wasn’t the first person to get personal. He presented some strongly worded generalities that other people took personally. Huge difference.

You know, I came into this thread to make some snide comment like “Do they allow polyamory in World of Warcraft?” Then I read Diogenes post in which he brings to relationships the same fine analytical reasoning he’s been applying to politics during his time on this board. I’m not sure “ignorant and rude” goes far enough.

I guess polygamy just doesn’t raise my hackles, aside from a bemused “Who the hell has the energy?”

Bwahahaha! Another perfect sig line! Two in one thread! Who knew?

Guess you missed the post where she said she didn’t suffer any childhood trauma.

What should I have said if I thought he was trying to use me as a blow-up doll for masturbating his ignorance to climax?

I’d pay to see that.