3 ms·

There are plenty of examples where it is fallacious though, often absurdly so. The important distinction is: does A abstractly "lead to" B, or does A directly e

There are plenty of examples where it is fallacious though, often absurdly so. The important distinction is: does A abstractly "lead to" B, or does A directly enable B, but for some will to use it that way. For one example, it was always absurd to suggest that gay marriage would lead to legalized pedophilia, bestiality, or marriage to objects.

docmars 5y ago
Meanwhile, trolls and staunch intellectuals demanding "enough" evidence think they can gatekeep what's acceptable to notice is already slipping and gaslight others for noticing and worrying, only to find that years later, the Overton window shifted and newer generations were none the wiser, bringing the things that were previously unacceptable into the mainstream with reckless abandon. (edited for brevity, expanding more on this in a reply...)
- docmars 5y ago
  I'm going to get a little facetious here: The corporation that is the U.S government acts just like one: roadmaps and planning ahead for radical policy changes to occur within longer spans of time to signify progress (or something), and then absolutely losing their shit if an opposing candidate wins & gets in the way of their progress, as we observed these past 5 years. Acceptance of pedophilia has been set in motion for several years now. One only need look at some of California's SB-145, the ever-expanding reach of public schools teaching sex-ed to kindergartners, and the N number of drag queens sexualizing themselves in front of young children in public libraries and schools with grand applause and media gushing as these facilities move a few steps away from becoming brothels. (See what I did there? Surely our libraries won't become brothels, that would be absurd! I mean, the chances of that happening are 2nd to none; and if 10 years from now, libraries still aren't brothels, then I'd have been wrong after all, and my playful exaggeration will have expired. A gatekeeper would have done their noble internet duty to inform me just how idiotic my suggestion was from the start, to be sure. The joke's on them for losing 15 minutes crafting the perfect response to my alarmism that will definitely change my mind.) We had none of this just 3 years ago, but I'm pretty confident I'll be gaslit in response to my highly misinformed and "hateful" comments, as it goes. ;) That's no matter though. I take responsibility for that by standing by what I say, not bending to the winds of outrage.
  - ric2b 5y ago
    The only example you mentioned that is attributable to government is sex-ed. Sex education isn't about teaching you how to have sex, it's "here's all the reasons you need to be very careful with sex". In my classes I learned about many different STI's and the dangers of unprotected sex. Not once was I taught a Kamasutra position or what to do with my fingers. For younger kids I assume the curriculum would be more about what kinds of behaviors they need to be careful of and immediately warn other adults about. I suppose the name is very unfortunate because a lot of people seem to think sex-ed is about getting young people to start having sex, when in fact it has the opposite result and we can see it in statistics.
xdennis 5y ago
Instead it lead to things like being sent to jail for calling his daughter she: https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-arrested-for-discussing-childs-gender-in-court-order-violation/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-arrested-for-discussing-ch...
- delecti 5y ago
  You're implying a slippery slope fallaciously. Legal protections for transgender people does not directly follow from legalized gay marriage. Also, that father violated a gag order, and acted against the decisions of the both custodial parent and his child's medical professionals. You're being disingenuous to misrepresent that as "for calling his daughter[sic] she".

docmars 5y ago

Meanwhile, trolls and staunch intellectuals demanding "enough" evidence think they can gatekeep what's acceptable to notice is already slipping and gaslight others for noticing and worrying, only to find that years later, the Overton window shifted and newer generations were none the wiser, bringing the things that were previously unacceptable into the mainstream with reckless abandon. (edited for brevity, expanding more on this in a reply...)

docmars 5y ago
I'm going to get a little facetious here: The corporation that is the U.S government acts just like one: roadmaps and planning ahead for radical policy changes to occur within longer spans of time to signify progress (or something), and then absolutely losing their shit if an opposing candidate wins & gets in the way of their progress, as we observed these past 5 years. Acceptance of pedophilia has been set in motion for several years now. One only need look at some of California's SB-145, the ever-expanding reach of public schools teaching sex-ed to kindergartners, and the N number of drag queens sexualizing themselves in front of young children in public libraries and schools with grand applause and media gushing as these facilities move a few steps away from becoming brothels. (See what I did there? Surely our libraries won't become brothels, that would be absurd! I mean, the chances of that happening are 2nd to none; and if 10 years from now, libraries still aren't brothels, then I'd have been wrong after all, and my playful exaggeration will have expired. A gatekeeper would have done their noble internet duty to inform me just how idiotic my suggestion was from the start, to be sure. The joke's on them for losing 15 minutes crafting the perfect response to my alarmism that will definitely change my mind.) We had none of this just 3 years ago, but I'm pretty confident I'll be gaslit in response to my highly misinformed and "hateful" comments, as it goes. ;) That's no matter though. I take responsibility for that by standing by what I say, not bending to the winds of outrage.
- ric2b 5y ago
  The only example you mentioned that is attributable to government is sex-ed. Sex education isn't about teaching you how to have sex, it's "here's all the reasons you need to be very careful with sex". In my classes I learned about many different STI's and the dangers of unprotected sex. Not once was I taught a Kamasutra position or what to do with my fingers. For younger kids I assume the curriculum would be more about what kinds of behaviors they need to be careful of and immediately warn other adults about. I suppose the name is very unfortunate because a lot of people seem to think sex-ed is about getting young people to start having sex, when in fact it has the opposite result and we can see it in statistics.

xdennis 5y ago

Instead it lead to things like being sent to jail for calling his daughter she: https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-arrested-for-discussing-childs-gender-in-court-order-violation/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-arrested-for-discussing-ch...

delecti 5y ago
You're implying a slippery slope fallaciously. Legal protections for transgender people does not directly follow from legalized gay marriage. Also, that father violated a gag order, and acted against the decisions of the both custodial parent and his child's medical professionals. You're being disingenuous to misrepresent that as "for calling his daughter[sic] she".