You’ll have to point me in the direction of the law you claim. Also, cite your definition of pedophilia, please.

When and how did this thread become a conversation about pedophilia? I don't get it. That seemed to come out of nowhere.

I think they are working out which groups not to provoke.

I'm holding my input till we get to cheer leaders.........as a group. I can take them individually.

(November 1, 2017 at 4:45 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I would also like to point out that it is impossible to have a discussion without generalizing. There is nothing wrong with making the generalization that "men are taller than women." People should be smart enough to recognize that a generalization is by its very nature an expression of normative properties. People who need all manner of qualifications like "some" and "most" and "many" aren't being reasonable. If I say that political progressives are left-wing, I suppose that could mean that some progressive some where is a right-winger, but no one would call that normative. So it doesn't make sense to call it false equivocation. If someone makes an thread or post about "Christians" it isn't hard to figure out if they are thinking about Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, or Presbyterians. I don't need anyone to qualify their generalizations. But heaven forbid anyone make a generalization about atheists suggesting that they are by and large naturalists or moral relativists even though those are clearly normative traits.

"Loaded question" was a normal way to speak, for everyone use to known it meant "If x, and I believe x is true, then why x?". No one thought of it as trying to trick, till, recently it has become a fallacy.

There are other fallacies known as fallacies that are not. Generalization is a normal way to speak about norms. It never meant absolutely every single person of x is is x. It was understood "generally."

This is a pathetic generation redefining words and not only that, but doing away with centuries of how humans have been talking to each other and understanding each other.

And say you use hyperbole these days for example....some literalist will tell you what you really meant.

I don't think you understand what a logical fallacy is, lol.

(November 10, 2017 at 1:16 am)Hammy Wrote: I don't think you understand what a logical fallacy is, lol.

Wouldn't be the first things you thought wrong about me.

---

In fact, sometimes loaded question comes in the form of "If x, then is x true and if true, then why", all summarized in the question. No one understood it as a fallacy till recently. Idiots do this. And red-herring are not always wrong if they point to a solution and essential issue with the problem, even if it not directly answering the issue or turn the issue right back at it's face.

The philosophers have outdone themselves to stupidity with their rule books of fallacies.

(November 10, 2017 at 1:17 am)MysticKnight Wrote: The philosophers have outdone themselves to stupidity with their rule books of fallacies.

^ This demonstrates that you misunderstand logical fallacies.