My apologies
As I knew I did, I oversimplified Ian's point and was a prick over how I did it. Not for one second did I think that he's a cold fish. He's not. To better understand what he believes on this, please read this.
And my response.
1. "Not that I'm saying Aaron is saying this last point [about being a cold fish], but it's not an unreasonable thing to infer from the easiest, quickest ways to describe some of my beliefs." Ian's right, it's not an unreasonable thing to infer. But I don't and never did think Ian's a cold fish. And if you do from reading my post, you don't know Ian. And by the way, the way I described his beliefs was how I understood them. In the middle of a rant I used a description which while oversimplified was nonetheless an accurate description of how I understood Ian's point. Not that it was an accurate description of his point. I think there's an important difference there.
2. I think where Ian and I disagree is over the validity of an individual's feelings versus his assertion (as I understand it) that you don't require love "(and in this particular statement, we mean a very specific thing by love, a culturally standard romantic monogamous relationship)" to live a complete and happy life. What I don't understand and what he would have to convince me of to persuade me of his point, is how any individual's feelings in this regard can be valid if his assertion is true. How can they both be right? Because if nobody does, but individual feelings are valid and I say that I do, then there's a problem there. If instead Ian is saying that he doesn't require love for a complete and happy life, then I withdraw all opposition and apologize. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding him and hearing 'nobody requires love for a complete and happy life' when what he's actually saying is 'I don't.' Is that it?
3. "I don't deny the validity of how you feel about this, please don't deny the validity of how I live my life by saying it 'might even work for some people.'" From (2), it should be clear that I wasn't trying to deny the validity of how Ian lives his life. However, rereading my statement now, I can see how it comes off as belittling. If I could go back and rewrite it, I'd write, "I'm sure that statement accurately describes how some people live their lives, but it doesn't apply to me."
4. "Why should being alone be shameful?" Ian's completely correct here. There is nothing wrong with being alone. Some people prefer it. Absolutely nothing wrong with that or them. I didn't mean that being lonely was embarassing, I meant that admitting it was embarassing for me.
5. "I'm certainly not worried/upset/annoyed or anything like that. But hopefully you're aware that when you put that sort of thing out there, you run the risk of starting a dialogue, whether you were just blowing off steam of not. Hence this post." I'm glad you're not. I didn't want to start a dialogue, but knew I was risking that. I was... howling at the moon, I guess. But if dialogue comes of it, so be it.
6. I'm not upset or annoyed with Ian or his post either. This is how my friendship with Ian works. One of us will say something the other doesn't understand or doesn't agree with and then will call him on it. Debate results. And I'm often left spluttering as I try to clearly say what I mean. It's one of the things I enjoy most about being friends with him. Hopefully I didn't cause him offense this time.
And my response.
1. "Not that I'm saying Aaron is saying this last point [about being a cold fish], but it's not an unreasonable thing to infer from the easiest, quickest ways to describe some of my beliefs." Ian's right, it's not an unreasonable thing to infer. But I don't and never did think Ian's a cold fish. And if you do from reading my post, you don't know Ian. And by the way, the way I described his beliefs was how I understood them. In the middle of a rant I used a description which while oversimplified was nonetheless an accurate description of how I understood Ian's point. Not that it was an accurate description of his point. I think there's an important difference there.
2. I think where Ian and I disagree is over the validity of an individual's feelings versus his assertion (as I understand it) that you don't require love "(and in this particular statement, we mean a very specific thing by love, a culturally standard romantic monogamous relationship)" to live a complete and happy life. What I don't understand and what he would have to convince me of to persuade me of his point, is how any individual's feelings in this regard can be valid if his assertion is true. How can they both be right? Because if nobody does, but individual feelings are valid and I say that I do, then there's a problem there. If instead Ian is saying that he doesn't require love for a complete and happy life, then I withdraw all opposition and apologize. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding him and hearing 'nobody requires love for a complete and happy life' when what he's actually saying is 'I don't.' Is that it?
3. "I don't deny the validity of how you feel about this, please don't deny the validity of how I live my life by saying it 'might even work for some people.'" From (2), it should be clear that I wasn't trying to deny the validity of how Ian lives his life. However, rereading my statement now, I can see how it comes off as belittling. If I could go back and rewrite it, I'd write, "I'm sure that statement accurately describes how some people live their lives, but it doesn't apply to me."
4. "Why should being alone be shameful?" Ian's completely correct here. There is nothing wrong with being alone. Some people prefer it. Absolutely nothing wrong with that or them. I didn't mean that being lonely was embarassing, I meant that admitting it was embarassing for me.
5. "I'm certainly not worried/upset/annoyed or anything like that. But hopefully you're aware that when you put that sort of thing out there, you run the risk of starting a dialogue, whether you were just blowing off steam of not. Hence this post." I'm glad you're not. I didn't want to start a dialogue, but knew I was risking that. I was... howling at the moon, I guess. But if dialogue comes of it, so be it.
6. I'm not upset or annoyed with Ian or his post either. This is how my friendship with Ian works. One of us will say something the other doesn't understand or doesn't agree with and then will call him on it. Debate results. And I'm often left spluttering as I try to clearly say what I mean. It's one of the things I enjoy most about being friends with him. Hopefully I didn't cause him offense this time.
