My point was to promote openness to polyamory as “one among many mainstream relationship styles”.
What do you mean by that, should we also promote openness to shared-property communes as “one among many lifestyle” options. How about astrology as “one of many options for predicting the future”? In a sense the answer is yes, i.e., we shouldn’t burn people who do these things at the stake. On the other hand we probably shouldn’t be encouraging people to do those things either.
Your article certainly looks much more like its written in with the latter rather then the former meaning of “promote openness” in mind. After all, no one is burning polyamourists at the stake.
Actually, there is quite a high social stigma against poly relationships, and I believe it is worthwhile to use rational thinking to re-assesses cached thoughts about relationships as well as many other life domains. What are your thoughts on the benefits of using rational thinking to re-assess our cached patterns?
I see that you have a strong opinion against polyamory, and I accept that this is what you believe. I think there are otherposts on LW better suited for that debate, so I will avoid engaging with you further on this topic.
I think there are other posts on LW better suited for that debate,
Both of which are rather short on actual arguments beyond the ones I described here. In fact, my summary there almost looks like a Steelman of their argument.
so I will avoid engaging with you further on this topic.
So you’re willing to post a pro-polyamory article with questionable logic on a site supposedly dedicated to raising the sanity waterline, but aren’t willing to discuss the topic.
should we also promote openness to shared-property communes as “one among many lifestyle” options.
I don’t know why not. Kibbutzim are a valid lifestyle choice in Israel, for example, and I don’t see any horrors coming out of that. Shared-property communes with the right of exit and very different from “shared-”property governments.
What do you mean by that, should we also promote openness to shared-property communes as “one among many lifestyle” options. How about astrology as “one of many options for predicting the future”? In a sense the answer is yes, i.e., we shouldn’t burn people who do these things at the stake. On the other hand we probably shouldn’t be encouraging people to do those things either.
Your article certainly looks much more like its written in with the latter rather then the former meaning of “promote openness” in mind. After all, no one is burning polyamourists at the stake.
Actually, there is quite a high social stigma against poly relationships, and I believe it is worthwhile to use rational thinking to re-assesses cached thoughts about relationships as well as many other life domains. What are your thoughts on the benefits of using rational thinking to re-assess our cached patterns?
social stigma =/= burring at the stake
I think such social stigma is still a harmful thing for our society, and would like to oppose it :-)
Why? I think bad decisions should be stigmatized. And that’s before we get into the issue of how polyamory is supposed to raise children.
I see that you have a strong opinion against polyamory, and I accept that this is what you believe. I think there are other posts on LW better suited for that debate, so I will avoid engaging with you further on this topic.
Both of which are rather short on actual arguments beyond the ones I described here. In fact, my summary there almost looks like a Steelman of their argument.
So you’re willing to post a pro-polyamory article with questionable logic on a site supposedly dedicated to raising the sanity waterline, but aren’t willing to discuss the topic.
I don’t know why not. Kibbutzim are a valid lifestyle choice in Israel, for example, and I don’t see any horrors coming out of that. Shared-property communes with the right of exit and very different from “shared-”property governments.
My understanding is that most communes collapse for pretty much the reasons you’d expect.
Oh, sure, they are not the success their founders expected. Still, as an institution they are a century old and are still around.
Diversity is good.
That doesn’t mean we should refrain from applying social pressure to people doing stupid things.
Your idea of what’s stupid may be quite different from my idea of what’s stupid. To what do you want to apply “social pressure”?