CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: A question for superhero and for homosexuals
 
White Shark Views: 4,267
Published: 16 years ago
 
This is a reply to # 343,797

Re: A question for superhero and for homosexuals


Superhero,
ever heard about logical fallacies?

You have some serious problems with your logic, we have to work a bit on that part of your education.


Let's first agree about few definitions about people who want to adopt kids:

a) "Homosexual married couple" = a couple (man + man or woman + woman ) = people who usually love each other, live together, have no kids, and would like to adopt kids

b) Heterosexual married couple = a couple (man + woman ) = people who love each other, live together, have no kids, and would like to adopt kids


c) Pedophile = a person who is sexually attracted to kids, and enjoys sexually abusing/raping/touching kids


Can one or both of parties in "Homosexual married couple" be a pedophile? Yes
Can one or both of parties in "Heterosexual married couple" be a pedophile? Yes


Are some or all parties in "Homosexual married couple" always pedophiles? NO
Are some or all parties in "Heterosexual married couple" always pedophiles? NO


Question about word "twink" at Google:
What is your point?
Are you trying to say that "only homosexuals are pedophiles"? That is what it sounds like to me. Correct me if I am wrong.
If yes, can you give any evidence? Scientific reports that can prove your point?

And, another question: are you trying to say that "heterosexuals are never pedophiles"? That is what it sounds like to me.
It sounds like this:

You don't think homos should adopt kids cause they are always pedophiles ... and you think heteros should adopt kids cause they are never pedophiles?
If yes, can you give any evidence? Scientific reports that can prove your point?


Now, a little bit about your logical fallacies:





Fallacy: Invalid conversion, syllogism

If some A are B, then all B are A

Exaple: because some pedophiles are gay, that means that all gay are pedophiles

Another example: because some pedophiles are gay, that mean that no heterosexuals are pedophiles.



Fallacy: Spotlight

The Spotlight fallacy is committed when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media. This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

A homosexual pedophile was raping young boys, and is on trial. That means that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

This line of reasoning is fallacious since the mere fact that someone or something attracts the most attention or coverage in the media does not mean that it automatically represents the whole population.



Fallacy: Relativist Fallacy

Also Known as: The Subjectivist Fallacy.

The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Claim X is presented.

Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.



Fallacy: Slippery Slope

Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.

Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim.

Example: Gay couples wants to adopt kids, that means they are pedophiles.



Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer.

Example:
Marriage between homosexuals was not legal last 5 000 years. That is why marriage between homosexuals should not be legal today.

White Shark
 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2022  curezone.com

3.625 sec, (2)