Discussion, not Provocation

[FFaith]

Wait, if you commit a sexual offense against a child, you're a pedophile. I don't care if the person says they're usually attracted to women or whatever. You clearly have a sexual attraction, however perverse or involving dominance or some other aspect that apologists will use to mitigate the pedophilia, to children. That said, I agree that not all pedophiles are offenders, not that I've ever met one who isn't, but I can make a logical assumption there.

No, that's why it's not called pedophilia by the law. In a medical context, all pedophilia means is a primary sexual attraction to pre-pubescents. Most people use the slang version of pedophilia though, which means a person who has or is actively trying to do something sexual with people up to the age of 17, but that's just slang. It's not a technical definition. Going by the technical definition, pedos are blamed for thousands of crimes they do not commit, and pedo is being used pretty much as an equal term to rapist, when most pedos probably don't rape and never will.

Research suggests that whether one offends or not has a lot to do with the gray matter in the brain. There was a thread about this a few months back on AF.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5534964/

[Shell B]

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

[FFaith]

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

I meant that there is no crime called pedophilia, because pedophilia is completely legal. Can't be charged for a thought crime. That's why they call it child molestation or rape rather than pedophilia.

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd1.../en#/F65.4

[Whateverist]

I feel provoked by all this talk of prime directives but do not wish to discuss it!

---

    j/k   They say acting immaturely is a sure path to staying youthful.

---

[Edwardo Piet]

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

[brewer]

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.

[Mystic]

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

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

[Mystic]

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

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

^ This demonstrates that you misunderstand logical fallacies.