Debate Guide: Cognitive distortions: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:Cog distortion.jpg|thumb|Cognitive distortion]]Cognitive distortion or so-called "pedologic". | [[Image:Cog distortion.jpg|thumb|Cognitive distortion]]Cognitive distortion or so-called "pedologic". | ||
<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express <ref>https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ699140</ref> cognitive distortions, often read like [[NAMBLA]] pamphlets.'''''</font></blockquote> | |||
Rationalisations may be rational. To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalisation is a | 1. Rationalisations [[Research: Cognitive Distortion|may be rational]]. | ||
2. Anybody who has been caught and shamed for committing any illegal act might be inclined to defend/reinterpret their actions, in order to garner sympathy or leniency. That's just normal. | |||
To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalisation is just a lazy argument from scientific authority. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo, held as gospel by the investigators. By defining a common or objectionable argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common within a certain sample, said sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled ''circulus in probando'' argument. So in conclusion, the often abused "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion cognitive distortion]" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority. | |||
Circulus in probando: | Circulus in probando: | ||
| Line 15: | Line 19: | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Research: Cognitive Distortion]] | |||
*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]] | *[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]] | ||
*[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research. | *[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research. | ||
*[[Moral preconception]] | |||
==References== | |||
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]] | [[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]] | ||
[[fr:Guide de débat: Distorsions cognitives]] | [[fr:Guide de débat: Distorsions cognitives]] | ||
Latest revision as of 21:37, 9 April 2023
Cognitive distortion or so-called "pedologic".
Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express [1] cognitive distortions, often read like NAMBLA pamphlets.
1. Rationalisations may be rational.
2. Anybody who has been caught and shamed for committing any illegal act might be inclined to defend/reinterpret their actions, in order to garner sympathy or leniency. That's just normal.
To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalisation is just a lazy argument from scientific authority. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo, held as gospel by the investigators. By defining a common or objectionable argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common within a certain sample, said sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled circulus in probando argument. So in conclusion, the often abused "cognitive distortion" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority.
Circulus in probando:
- "We can trust what the bible says about God ... because it is the inspired word of God".
- "We know that the pedophiles are cognitively distorted ... because the pedophiles use cognitive distortions".
One example justifies the assumed authority of God with the assumed auhority of God. The other justifies the prevalence of assumed cognitive distortions by identifying a prevalence of assumed cognitive distortions.
See also
- Research: Cognitive Distortion
- Cognitive distortion (psychology)
- Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience) - Some research.
- Moral preconception