Debate Guide: Your arguments must be self-serving: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New page: :''"The arguments you are making stink of the well revised plotting of a self - interested pervert. You are in fact just trying to excuse your actions/proclivities, and your argument is in...)
 
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
:''"The arguments you are making stink of the well revised plotting of a self - interested pervert. You are in fact just trying to excuse your actions/proclivities, and your argument is inescapably bound up with this bias."''
[[File:Accusation.jpg|thumb|A frequent tactic of [[anti]]s is to scold participants as self-interested]]
__NOTOC__Typically this argument comes in the form of an emotionalistic ad-hominem that appeals unduly to motive:
<blockquote>
<font color="green">'''''Never trust a pervert.'''''</font><br><hr>
<font color="green">'''''Only a pedo would make this argument.'''''</font><br><hr>
<font color="green">'''''You are just a pedo loser, trying to <u>legitimize your perversion</u> in order to get access to kids.'''''</font><br><hr>
<font color="green">'''''Since you as a "MAP" are biased, you are <u>always going to lie and obfuscate</u>. There's just no point engaging with vermin; kill it with fire!'''''</font>
</blockquote>


Do not divert from the discussion. I have presented you with arguments, and you must dismiss them with logic, not speculation. The argument is there for you to see, the author is not.
Ad-hominem arguments are invariably an attempt to distract from the proponent's own weaknesses and provide a suitable explanation for why their opponent may be more persuasive.  


Even if I was a known pedophile, this would not detract from your duty to deconstruct my arguments, which would be just as valid on their own. Would we want to undermine the campaigning of the ethnic civil rights movement, because their arguments were in their own interests? Of course not, although it isn't surprising that it happened in the past, and continues to. And anyway, is experience not valued in most fields of insight? You could even say that deliberately rejecting, or not asking for a pedo's POV, is equivalent to excluding Party members from a vote on the Party leadership, or NRA members from a referendum on gun control!
According to the "only a pedo" iteration of this illogical argument, card-carrying supporters of the [[Communism|Spartacist League]], [[Ageism|ASFAR]], the 1970s [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity|Gay Movement]], or even members of [[Research: Intergenerational Relationships in History|various societies throughout history]] must be "pedophilic".


Anyway, if these 'perverts' continue to face such a current of prejudice as you are promoting, then I will be long dead before their aims are satisfied''.
It would also follow that an actual criminal "online pedophile" would not be spending his time very efficiently arguing with brain-damaged normies half way across the globe. Especially on hot-button topics that will never be resolved in his own lifetime.


Your opponent may also try to invoke guilt by association (a fallacious line of reasoning) by categorically rejecting data or arguments, simply because of the website or source at which they are located.
==The [[Wikipedia:The personal is political|personal is political]]==


==See also==
Since a person's '''personal situation shapes their political beliefs''', it is perhaps not surprising we see more [[Minor Attracted Person|MAPs]] supporting a broad base of of civil causes (including better understanding of attraction to minors), as did homosexuals, ethnic minorities, etc, with their own radicalism.


This is maybe a point at which you should gracefully disclose whatever sexual orientation you do have, despite the fact that it has no logical bearing on the debate. For a similar argument, see:
This also works in reverse. Being able to question entrenched taboos and social values probably means you are also the kind of person who is more likely to recognize (and be open about) characteristics of their own that challenge social orthodoxy. Minor attraction is far more common than assumed; for example, a study by [[Kent State Study|Hall]] et al indicated that around 30% of men in the sample were equally or preferentially aroused by prepubescent stimuli. [[Research: Prevalence|Other examples]] using more categories also exist.


*[[Debate Guide: Only a pedophile would make this argument|Only a pedophile would make this argument]]
It should also be noted that most [[Special Article: Adverse effects of hysteria|victims of the "pedophile witch hunt"]] are not pedophiles. Some may be preferentially attracted to [[Ephebophilia|adolescent]]/[[Hebephilia|pubescent]] youth, or have a non-preferential interest. Some may be the falsely accused or [[Special Article: Adverse effects of hysteria|related in some way to such an individual]]. Supposed [[:Category:People|"pedophile defenders"]] include various [[Bruce Rind|academics]] and [[Judith Levine|authors]] who have made the argument that absent social intervention, unlawful minor-adult sex can still be harmless.
 
==The argument is an absurd appeal to the orthodoxy==
 
Why not re-appraise and similarly undermine the campaigning of the Black or Gay Civil Rights Movements in postwar America? After all, their arguments were made by black and gay people themselves, and blatantly in their own interests. Realizing just how wrong we were about emancipating slaves, we could go on to ban registered Democrats from voting on the party leadership, or ban NRA members from votes on gun control. But for subjective and preconceived notions of "motive" and "self-interest" against minorities, experience is otherwise valued in most fields of insight. For example, we now talk of the "lived experiences" of black people, gays and transsexuals (particularly black transsexuals) as something that cannot even be challenged.
 
==Forbidden fruit/crossing the rubicon==
 
<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Are you, or are you not trying to defend [[pedophilia]]/[[degeneracy]] by describing yourself/other person as a "MAP"?'''''</font></blockquote>
 
Setting up an "indefensible" position (on their own terms) and challenging an opponent to support it, is a common, but basic attempt at a [[Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality|guilt by association fallacy]].
 
The extent to which you must "defend" something found to be unpalatable by most of society is '''actually determined''' by the level of misconception/bigotry circulated about that topic. So in this instance:
 
*It is the person who objects to/misrepresents pedophiles/hebephiles who is actually ''creating the demand'' for a public debate or use of a neologism within that debate. They proceed to act hurt and offended when their flagrant ignorance has caused such a debate to arise. In some instances they even scold their opponents for suggesting pedophiles are a stigmatized minority, when it is they who perpetuate the stigma.
*When the MAP/ally gives a nuanced response to the yes-or-no challenge, they are invariably accused of ''evasion''. However, their opponent has most probably not defined what "pedophilia" or "defense of pedophilia" means to them, while unfairly seeking a binding answer from their opponent. So in fact, it is ''they'' who are engaged in a form of evasion allowing them to manipulate the debate for their own ends.
 
One of the better responses to this argument, is to point out the flaws above, explain why defending pedophiles might in fact be necessary in the face of this ignorance, and then confirm that your answer is "yes", to pre-emptively negate the charge of evasion.
 
==Genetic fallacies concerning use of sources==
 
<blockquote><font color="green">'''''The [[David Finkelhor|Finkelhor]] source you provided has no value, just like anything else printed by [[Ipce]]. Ipce's site also publishes sordid essays justifying the vicious molestation of <u>LITERAL CHILDREN</u>.'''''</font></blockquote>
 
Another [[Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality|guilt by association fallacy]]. You can not categorically reject data or arguments, simply because you disapprove of the messenger. For example, many scholarly works would not be publicly available if not for the efforts of activist organizations that publish them, or journals such as [[Paidika]].
 
==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered==
 
*Genetic fallacy: In particular, ad hominem, guilt by association, [[Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality|appealing to motive.]]
*Cognitive distortion: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion Jumping to conclusions, mind reading and emotional reasoning]


[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]

Latest revision as of 14:33, 14 April 2024

A frequent tactic of antis is to scold participants as self-interested

Typically this argument comes in the form of an emotionalistic ad-hominem that appeals unduly to motive:

Never trust a pervert.


Only a pedo would make this argument.


You are just a pedo loser, trying to legitimize your perversion in order to get access to kids.


Since you as a "MAP" are biased, you are always going to lie and obfuscate. There's just no point engaging with vermin; kill it with fire!

Ad-hominem arguments are invariably an attempt to distract from the proponent's own weaknesses and provide a suitable explanation for why their opponent may be more persuasive.

According to the "only a pedo" iteration of this illogical argument, card-carrying supporters of the Spartacist League, ASFAR, the 1970s Gay Movement, or even members of various societies throughout history must be "pedophilic".

It would also follow that an actual criminal "online pedophile" would not be spending his time very efficiently arguing with brain-damaged normies half way across the globe. Especially on hot-button topics that will never be resolved in his own lifetime.

The personal is political

Since a person's personal situation shapes their political beliefs, it is perhaps not surprising we see more MAPs supporting a broad base of of civil causes (including better understanding of attraction to minors), as did homosexuals, ethnic minorities, etc, with their own radicalism.

This also works in reverse. Being able to question entrenched taboos and social values probably means you are also the kind of person who is more likely to recognize (and be open about) characteristics of their own that challenge social orthodoxy. Minor attraction is far more common than assumed; for example, a study by Hall et al indicated that around 30% of men in the sample were equally or preferentially aroused by prepubescent stimuli. Other examples using more categories also exist.

It should also be noted that most victims of the "pedophile witch hunt" are not pedophiles. Some may be preferentially attracted to adolescent/pubescent youth, or have a non-preferential interest. Some may be the falsely accused or related in some way to such an individual. Supposed "pedophile defenders" include various academics and authors who have made the argument that absent social intervention, unlawful minor-adult sex can still be harmless.

The argument is an absurd appeal to the orthodoxy

Why not re-appraise and similarly undermine the campaigning of the Black or Gay Civil Rights Movements in postwar America? After all, their arguments were made by black and gay people themselves, and blatantly in their own interests. Realizing just how wrong we were about emancipating slaves, we could go on to ban registered Democrats from voting on the party leadership, or ban NRA members from votes on gun control. But for subjective and preconceived notions of "motive" and "self-interest" against minorities, experience is otherwise valued in most fields of insight. For example, we now talk of the "lived experiences" of black people, gays and transsexuals (particularly black transsexuals) as something that cannot even be challenged.

Forbidden fruit/crossing the rubicon

Are you, or are you not trying to defend pedophilia/degeneracy by describing yourself/other person as a "MAP"?

Setting up an "indefensible" position (on their own terms) and challenging an opponent to support it, is a common, but basic attempt at a guilt by association fallacy.

The extent to which you must "defend" something found to be unpalatable by most of society is actually determined by the level of misconception/bigotry circulated about that topic. So in this instance:

  • It is the person who objects to/misrepresents pedophiles/hebephiles who is actually creating the demand for a public debate or use of a neologism within that debate. They proceed to act hurt and offended when their flagrant ignorance has caused such a debate to arise. In some instances they even scold their opponents for suggesting pedophiles are a stigmatized minority, when it is they who perpetuate the stigma.
  • When the MAP/ally gives a nuanced response to the yes-or-no challenge, they are invariably accused of evasion. However, their opponent has most probably not defined what "pedophilia" or "defense of pedophilia" means to them, while unfairly seeking a binding answer from their opponent. So in fact, it is they who are engaged in a form of evasion allowing them to manipulate the debate for their own ends.

One of the better responses to this argument, is to point out the flaws above, explain why defending pedophiles might in fact be necessary in the face of this ignorance, and then confirm that your answer is "yes", to pre-emptively negate the charge of evasion.

Genetic fallacies concerning use of sources

The Finkelhor source you provided has no value, just like anything else printed by Ipce. Ipce's site also publishes sordid essays justifying the vicious molestation of LITERAL CHILDREN.

Another guilt by association fallacy. You can not categorically reject data or arguments, simply because you disapprove of the messenger. For example, many scholarly works would not be publicly available if not for the efforts of activist organizations that publish them, or journals such as Paidika.

Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered