Question

...
Shawn

See if you can detect the logical fallacy in this argument?

Actress Kristy Alley posted this comment. See if you can detect the logical fallacy. https://twitter.com/kirstiealley/status/1410932107812249605 

People are becoming so “open minded” that down the road they will support pediphilia as people “just loving children” You think I’m kidding. I’m not. It’s the direction this insanity is headed. You can “ok boomer” me all you want but this is where we will veer unless we change.
asked on Friday, Jul 02, 2021 12:18:32 PM by Shawn

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
1
Monique Z writes:

I get the point you're trying to make. You think this is a slippery slope, and for the most most part I would agree. However, there is some truth to what she is saying here.

 

There has been a growing movement of pedophiles who now call themselves "minor attracted persons(MAPs)" and even have their own pride flag. They advocate for the normalization of "minor attraction", legalization of child pronography, and the lowering of the age of consent in various countries around the world. A few years ago I saw a TedX lecture of a man advocating for "ethical pedophilia". Unfortunately this movement does have its supporters and lends credibility to the possibility that some people will be "open minded" enough to get in board.

Anyways just thought it important for people to he informed about this movement because it's dangerous.

posted on Saturday, Jul 03, 2021 08:02:13 AM
...
2
Shawn writes:
[To Monique Z]

This is what referred to as "rebranding." You can read about that in the Daily Mail at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8466899/Paedophiles-rebrand-minor-attracted-persons-chilling-online-propaganda-drive.html

Basically, anything can be re-named or re-fashioned with a view to making it appear more acceptable. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Jul 03, 2021 09:30:59 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
4

This is tricky. While it is a slippery slope, the person making the Tweet may not be committing the fallacy. Consider four types of slippery slope:

1) Presenting an unreasonable and unlikely chain of events
2) Presenting an unreasonable but likely chain of events
3) Presenting a reasonable but unlikely chain of events
4) Presenting a reasonable and likely chain of events

#1 is the fallacious (#3 may be)—the others are non-fallacious slippery slopes. It wouldn't surprise me if an extreme leftist group argued that not allowing children to have sex with adults is some kind of "oppression" that is violating their human rights in some way. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if such a group already existed. Keep in mind this is totally unreasonable, but still likely (all it takes is 2 people to qualify as "people" and the Tweet would reflect a true slippery slope.) The person who made this Tweet is not claiming that it is reasonable to go from our current state of open mindedness to pedophilia; they are suggesting that it is likely.

If she meant the entire left or at least enough people to make having sex with children a legal and common practice (in the USA I presume), then this is a fallacious slippery slope because that is extremely unlikely.
answered on Friday, Jul 02, 2021 01:31:46 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

Nothing much to add; good answer.

Paedophilia is so far and away from what any mainstream left-wing group supports...it's not even worth bringing to the table.

Now, it gets a bit tricky here because some people support helping paedophiles rather than punishing them, e.g. with therapy and support to break through their disorder. However, this is far from defending and enabling the behaviour, so you'd risk a strawman fallacy if you tried playing that card.

posted on Saturday, Jul 03, 2021 04:42:37 AM
...
Mchasewalker
0

See Slippery Slope

answered on Friday, Jul 02, 2021 12:28:23 PM by Mchasewalker

Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories

Comments