Debate Guide: "As a parent" or "as a survivor": Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
:''"You clearly have no children. If you did, you would never argue for [POV] because all good parents would know what is in their child's best interest"''. | :''"You clearly have no children. If you did, you would never argue for [POV] because all good parents would know what is in their child's best interest"''. | ||
<hr> | |||
It was established many decades ago, that the [[Research: Who offends and how often?|child's own family is more of a danger than the general public]]. But that is old news from the 90s. | |||
Your argument is a genetic fallacy. Parenthood fails to add to or subtract from the value of your argument. If you like, we could take the opposite tack and go into the intricacies of debating the [[Debate Guide: Your arguments must be self-serving|merits of pedophiles' opinions]] on similar issues, but that would be equally fallacious. Ultimately, only reasoned, watertight arguments are going to help here. Can you provide them? | |||
==Moral monopoly== | |||
Also note that hysterical parents do not have a monopoly on deciding what is in "the child's best interest". | Also note that hysterical parents do not have a monopoly on deciding what is in "the child's best interest". If they did, we would never be able to take into account the [[Adverse effects of hysteria|adverse effects of bad policies]] until a parent was effected. | ||
==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered== | ==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered== | ||
*Ad hominem fallacy: | *[[Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality|Ad hominem fallacy, or appeal to authority/nature]]: Appeal to the tenuous knowledge/authority and good intentions of a parent - either hypothetical or real. | ||
*Cognitive distortion: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion Emotional reasoning] | *Cognitive distortion: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion Emotional reasoning] | ||
Revision as of 12:29, 26 October 2021
- "You clearly have no children. If you did, you would never argue for [POV] because all good parents would know what is in their child's best interest".
It was established many decades ago, that the child's own family is more of a danger than the general public. But that is old news from the 90s.
Your argument is a genetic fallacy. Parenthood fails to add to or subtract from the value of your argument. If you like, we could take the opposite tack and go into the intricacies of debating the merits of pedophiles' opinions on similar issues, but that would be equally fallacious. Ultimately, only reasoned, watertight arguments are going to help here. Can you provide them?
Moral monopoly
Also note that hysterical parents do not have a monopoly on deciding what is in "the child's best interest". If they did, we would never be able to take into account the adverse effects of bad policies until a parent was effected.
Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered
- Ad hominem fallacy, or appeal to authority/nature: Appeal to the tenuous knowledge/authority and good intentions of a parent - either hypothetical or real.
- Cognitive distortion: Emotional reasoning