Debate Guide: Cognitive distortions - Revision history

The Admins at 21:37, 9 April 2023

2023-04-09T21:37:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 9 April 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Image:Cog distortion.jpg\|thumb\|Cognitive distortion]]Cognitive distortion or so-called "pedologic".		[[Image:Cog distortion.jpg\|thumb\|Cognitive distortion]]Cognitive distortion or so-called "pedologic".

	<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express <ref>https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ699140</ref> cognitive distortions, often read like [[NAMBLA~~\|NAMbLA~~]] pamphlets.'''''</font></blockquote>		<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express <ref>https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ699140</ref> cognitive distortions, often read like [[NAMBLA]] pamphlets.'''''</font></blockquote>

	1. Rationalisations [[Research: Cognitive Distortion\|may be rational]].		1. Rationalisations [[Research: Cognitive Distortion\|may be rational]].

The Admins at 16:17, 1 August 2022

2022-08-01T16:17:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:17, 1 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Image:Cog distortion.jpg\|thumb\|Cognitive distortion]]Cognitive distortion or so-called "pedologic".		[[Image:Cog distortion.jpg\|thumb\|Cognitive distortion]]Cognitive distortion or so-called "pedologic".

	:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express <ref>https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ699140</ref> cognitive distortions, often read like NAMbLA pamphlets"''		<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express <ref>https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ699140</ref> cognitive distortions, often read like [[NAMBLA\|NAMbLA]] pamphlets.'''''</font></blockquote>

	1. Rationalisations [[Research: Cognitive Distortion\|may be rational]].		1. Rationalisations [[Research: Cognitive Distortion\|may be rational]].

The Admins at 20:11, 19 November 2021

2021-11-19T20:11:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:11, 19 November 2021
Line 22:		Line 22:
	*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]]		*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]]
	*[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research.		*[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research.
			*[[Moral preconception]]

	==References==		==References==

The Admins at 09:48, 25 September 2021

2021-09-25T09:48:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:48, 25 September 2021
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express <ref>https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ699140</ref> cognitive distortions, often read like NAMbLA pamphlets"''		:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express <ref>https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ699140</ref> cognitive distortions, often read like NAMbLA pamphlets"''

	1. Rationalisations may be rational.		1. Rationalisations [[Research: Cognitive Distortion\|may be rational]].

	2. Anybody who has been caught and shamed for committing any illegal act might be inclined to defend/reinterpret their actions, in order to garner sympathy or leniency. That's just normal.		2. Anybody who has been caught and shamed for committing any illegal act might be inclined to defend/reinterpret their actions, in order to garner sympathy or leniency. That's just normal.
Line 19:		Line 19:
	==See also==		==See also==

			*[[Research: Cognitive Distortion]]
	*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]]		*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]]
	*[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research.		*[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research.

The Admins at 09:42, 25 September 2021

2021-09-25T09:42:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:42, 25 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Image:Cog distortion.jpg\|thumb\|Cognitive distortion]]Cognitive distortion or so-called "pedologic".		[[Image:Cog distortion.jpg\|thumb\|Cognitive distortion]]Cognitive distortion or so-called "pedologic".

	:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express ~~[http~~://~~goliath~~.~~ecnext~~.~~com~~/~~coms2~~/~~gi_0199-4721459/Supportive-distortions-an-analysis-of.html~~ cognitive distortions], often read like NAMbLA pamphlets"''		:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express <ref>https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ699140</ref> cognitive distortions, often read like NAMbLA pamphlets"''

	1. Rationalisations may be rational.		1. Rationalisations may be rational.
Line 21:		Line 21:
	*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]]		*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]]
	*[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research.		*[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research.

			==References==

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

	[[fr:Guide de débat: Distorsions cognitives]]		[[fr:Guide de débat: Distorsions cognitives]]

The Admins at 02:33, 23 September 2021

2021-09-23T02:33:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:33, 23 September 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:
	2. Anybody who has been caught and shamed for committing any illegal act might be inclined to defend/reinterpret their actions, in order to garner sympathy or leniency. That's just normal.		2. Anybody who has been caught and shamed for committing any illegal act might be inclined to defend/reinterpret their actions, in order to garner sympathy or leniency. That's just normal.

	To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalisation is just a lazy ~~argumentfrom~~ scientific authority. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo, held as gospel by the investigators. By defining a common or objectionable argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common within a certain sample, said sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled ''circulus in probando'' argument. So in conclusion, the often abused "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion cognitive distortion]" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority.		To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalisation is just a lazy argument from scientific authority. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo, held as gospel by the investigators. By defining a common or objectionable argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common within a certain sample, said sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled ''circulus in probando'' argument. So in conclusion, the often abused "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion cognitive distortion]" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority.

	Circulus in probando:		Circulus in probando:

The Admins at 02:32, 23 September 2021

2021-09-23T02:32:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:32, 23 September 2021
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4721459/Supportive-distortions-an-analysis-of.html cognitive distortions], often read like NAMbLA pamphlets"''		:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4721459/Supportive-distortions-an-analysis-of.html cognitive distortions], often read like NAMbLA pamphlets"''

	Rationalisations may be rational. To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalisation is a ~~sign of weakness~~. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are ~~in fact~~ identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo. By defining a common or objectionable argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common in a certain sample, ~~that~~ sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled ''circulus in probando'' argument. So in conclusion, the ~~rare, but~~ often abused "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion cognitive distortion]" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority ~~if ever there was one~~.		1. Rationalisations may be rational.

			2. Anybody who has been caught and shamed for committing any illegal act might be inclined to defend/reinterpret their actions, in order to garner sympathy or leniency. That's just normal.

			To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalisation is just a lazy argumentfrom scientific authority. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo, held as gospel by the investigators. By defining a common or objectionable argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common within a certain sample, said sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled ''circulus in probando'' argument. So in conclusion, the often abused "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion cognitive distortion]" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority.

	Circulus in probando:		Circulus in probando:

Jillium at 20:00, 18 April 2009

2009-04-18T20:00:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 18 April 2009
Line 19:		Line 19:

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

			[[fr:Guide de débat: Distorsions cognitives]]

Boeotia: rationalistion is a sign... -> rationalisation is a sign...

2009-04-13T18:39:39Z

rationalistion is a sign... -> rationalisation is a sign...

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:39, 13 April 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4721459/Supportive-distortions-an-analysis-of.html cognitive distortions], often read like NAMbLA pamphlets"''		:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4721459/Supportive-distortions-an-analysis-of.html cognitive distortions], often read like NAMbLA pamphlets"''

	Rationalisations may be rational. To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that ~~rationalistion~~ is a sign of weakness. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are in fact identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo. By defining a common or objectionable argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common in a certain sample, that sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled ''circulus in probando'' argument. So in conclusion, the rare, but often abused "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion cognitive distortion]" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority if ever there was one.		Rationalisations may be rational. To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalisation is a sign of weakness. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are in fact identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo. By defining a common or objectionable argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common in a certain sample, that sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled ''circulus in probando'' argument. So in conclusion, the rare, but often abused "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion cognitive distortion]" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority if ever there was one.

	Circulus in probando:		Circulus in probando:

The Admins at 17:46, 25 February 2009

2009-02-25T17:46:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 25 February 2009
Line 16:		Line 16:

	*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]]		*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]]
			*[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research.

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