The polyamorous Christian socialist utopia that made silverware for proper Americans

Careful, you’ll get yourself put on a watchlist

1 Like

So, crazy guy doubles down on the “believes he owed” thing.


It’s not a bug. It’s a feature.

1 Like

Rocky’s forks go both ways, but that’s okay–so does he.


My grandmother’s silverware takes on a whole new twist!


I recommend to anyone the American Experience/PBS show “Death of a President” all about Garfield, Giteau, and the President’s physicians. A compelling bit of the American story.

1 Like

My experience is that people who believe in free love tend to actually be much more accepting of different body types and appearances. By contrast, believing that because your community is polyamorous you are owed sex is extremely unattractive.

I would say that a community that ends up rejecting a person who later committed murder in a fit of entitlement-fueled rage deserved credit for being a wise community that made good choices based on judgement of character more than it deserves blame for the too-high romantic standards of its members.


Well, and even moreso the idea that free-love means “We are at your command.” These aren’t single-payer government provided prostitutes, and even if they were they would presumably refuse people who were violent, which we have - on balance of evidence - reason to think Guiteau was.


I’m about to eat with an Oneida fork. If I wanted to feel dirty while I eat lunch, how do I make your magical thinking work for me? :smiling_imp:


Besides the one I was pointing out, which was along the lines of “This killer is $ETHNIC_GROUP, therefore all $ETHNIC_GROUP are potential killers”, except with $COULDN’T_GET_LAID standing in for $ETHNIC_GROUP? Getting everyone laid will not end the killing; indeed, for some I expect it would just result in abusive relationships, perhaps with a different pattern of violence in the end.

1 Like

Logical fallacies can only appear in logical arguments. Classical logic’s A OR NOT B construction hardly contains enough complexity to be of use in discussions of causation.

Even if it were true that in an alternate world where Mr. Guiteau had gotten laid more he would not have killed President Garfield, that hardly means that not getting laid caused him to do it. In another alternate world a massive meteor strike prevented Guiteau from killing Garfield - should we say that killings are primarily caused by a lack of extinction events?


What I’m saying is you can’t have it both ways. Either you are working in formal logic, where you can say, “That’s an invalid syllogism, therefore your argument is invalid.” or we are talking to one another and we have to question the reasonableness of concluding that lack of sex causes murder from the evidence that a particular person with a lack of sex does not commit murder. We’d have to figure out which side the burden of proof really lies on. We’d have to know what we mean by “cause”.

In other words, instead of saying, “Logical fallacy” it would be nice to explain what you mean or to say why you disagree.

If I wanted to just quote logical fallacies, so far I would point out that you’ve made an appeal to authority (“is generally considered to be an illogical argument”), employed a strawman (“I do not do X despite doing Y, therefore nobody does X who does Y” is a much weaker argument than “I do not do X despite doing Y, therefore Y does not cause X.”) and used the fallacy fallacy (rejecting the conclusion because the argument is flawed).

1 Like

I have deleted my posts on this thread.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.