[UUPoly-L] Flowers and Laws and Debates, oh my! (was RE: enough already)

["Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

Licorice gumdrop said: 
<< although *I* would like  
to point out that if someone takes issue with the neutrality of a  
wikipedia entry, he or she should feel free to edit said entry instead  
of filling up hundreds of inboxes with repetitive arguments - after  
all, that *is* the beauty of wikipedia; we're all potential  
contributors/editors.>>

Something which I most certainly intend to do, as soon as I have time to dig up appropriate citations, and which I encourage others to do as well. But it's not going to be productive to update that article with a *watch-dog* group keeping an eye on opposing *POV*s to reverse their edits.  That's the entire *problem* with a philosophically biased watch-dog group ("project") watch-dogging the article in the first place!

You might have noticed, had you actually *read* my first post, that I recommended also that folks read the talk/discussion page to see what's going on *on any controversial article*, and to see why I had decided that this particular article was biased. You would also notice, if you read, that I offered to discuss the topic of the Law of Attraction *off list*. I believe firmly, however, that when people are posting arguments and challenges to a fact, an opinion or a point of logic *on list*, that you have a right, and sometimes even a responsibility, to rebut those arguments, *on list*, especially when the information that they are giving is erroneous (such as "I would argue that rational or scientific skepticism is a set of tools for understanding, rather than any "point of view" or "doctrine." When rational or scientific skepticism is *defined* as an _epistemological position_ (i.e., a P.O.V.) 

That's how this whole thread got started after all. The *only* reason that I even brought it up the lack of neutrality of that article in the first place is that Valerie pointed to it as a reply to deafraven's inquire for information about the Law of Attraction and how it affects poly people.  Since the *only* information that anyone gave deafraven was to point to a biased article, I felt that it was my responsibility to point out that it *was* a biased article, and which way the bias leaned, because not to do so would be doing a disservice to those (like deafraven) looking for relevant information on the topic.

The whole out of control repeated arguments were caused by Desmond then offering the argument that Rational Skepticism was not a POV.  And the reason that the arguments repeat is because he ignored the documentation in my rebuttal and went to conflating the argument at hand (which was, "Is Rational Skepticism a P.O.V.?") by trying to attack whether or not the Law of Attraction could be proven or not (an entirely unrelated topic to whether or not Rational Skepticism is a P.O.V., and dragged in all sorts of logical fallacies, from Ignoratio elenchi to false dilemma.) And no matter how many times I dragged us back on topic, he continued conflating and obfuscating (a strategy used by debaters who can't actually *debate*, who try to win instead by confusing the judges.) 

And when it comes to turning opinions into a debate, yes, you can count on the fact that I'm going to point out the weaknesses in your "argument" anytime I have the time, because it annoys me... as someone who participated in both high school and college debate, to have people resort to the very tactics that are why I became jaded and *left* the field of forensic debate... because in debate, it's not important what the truth is, or what the evidence proves... it's only important who *wins*.  So I become very annoyed when people are conflating and obfuscating (apparently) simply to "win". 

And it further disturbs me greatly, especially on a UU list (because I have a deep respect for the above average intellect of UUs), and especially when it involves someone claiming to be a 'scientist' or a 'rationalist', demonstrating that they can't make an "argument" without resorting to constant logical fallacies or to tactics like conflation and obfuscation.  How can someone presume to lecture others on using empirical evidence to persuade others if they can't even create a logical argument which sticks to the actual point and which is not full of textbook logical fallacies and high school "dirty" debate tactics? How can we expect people to be critical thinkers if they can't understand the very simplest basis of a logical argument? 

Reasonable, rational arguments are not "won" by obfuscation and fallacies... they're won with solid reasoning and documentation.  So when someone jumps up and makes ludicrous and/or non-sequitor attacks on something that I stated, I feel the need to rebut that attack. 

<<now, back to the male deflowering question: it would depend which part  
of the anatomy was involved, wouldn't it?>>

Actually, I *personally*, have no interest in the "male deflowering" question... it's a ludicrous question and I see no relation to that question and polyamory either. I also refuse to acknowledge the authority of one group of folks on this group over another to get to determine what's interesting and what isn't.  Why, precisely, is it appropriate for you to stifle someone else's OT conversation when you're carrying on an OT conversation of your own?  Just because you find your topic interesting and the other topic disinteresting?  Or because yours is in "fun" and mine is "too serious"? The fact that yours is silly whereas mine has actual content doesn't impress me. Nor do I see why mine should simply be done because you are tired of it...  I'm just as tired of the silliness of the "male deflowering question"... it's like sitting in a restaurant watching two comic book geeks debate who would win a fight between Batman and Superman (or x and y, pick your two favorite geek topics.) *I*, however, am not enough of a nazi to ask that people stop talking about it... I know where my delete button is (although I tend to actually just use my "mark as read" button instead, as I archive things.) 

The standard *reasonable* thing to do on an open list, if you're not interested in a topic, (assuming people are polite enough to give you relevant subject lines - which you weren't) is to simply *delete* or mark as read those posts you're not interested in. 

And, no... it doesn't matter which part of the anatomy you're talking about.  Men do not have hymens, therefore men, while they can be 'virgins', cannot be 'deflowered'.  Duh!

5 dictionary results for: deflower

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
deÂflowÂer       /dÉËflaÊÉr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-flou-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
âverb (used with object)
1.	to deprive (a woman) of virginity.
2.	to despoil of beauty, freshness, sanctity, etc.
3.	to deprive or strip of flowers: The deer had deflowered an entire section of the garden.
[Origin: 1350â1400; ME deflouren < OF desflorer < L dÃflÅrÄre, equiv. to dÃ- de- + flÅr-, s. of flÅs flower + -Äre inf. suffix]

âRelated forms
deÂflowÂerÂer, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Â Random House, Inc. 2006.
"deflower." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 30 Sep. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deflower>.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
deÂflowÂer       (dÄ-flou'Ér)  Pronunciation Key 
tr.v.   deÂflowÂered, deÂflowÂerÂing, deÂflowÂers

   1. To take away the virginity of (a woman).
   2. To destroy the innocence, integrity, or beauty of; ravage.



[Middle English deflouren, from Old French defflourer, from Late Latin dÄflÅrÄre : Latin dÄ-, de- + Latin flÅs, flÅr-, flower; see bhel-3 in Indo-European roots.]

deÂflow'erÂer n.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright  2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
"deflower." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 30 Sep. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deflower>.

Online Etymology Dictionary 
1382, from O.Fr. desflorer (13c.), from L. deflorare from flos "flower" (see flora). Notion is "to strip of flowers," hence "to ravish," which is the original sense in Eng.

    "The French Indians are said not to have deflowered any of our young women they captivated." [1775]


Online Etymology Dictionary, Â 2001 Douglas Harper
"deflower." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 30 Sep. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deflower>.

Jezz, folks... bitch at me for rebutting circular arguments that bias isn't bias, while you've been having an ongoing geek debate over something you could just *look up in the dictionary. 

{sigh!} 
NT, 
Cat