Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality - Revision history

Thorn: /* Appeal to consequences */

2026-01-02T20:09:48Z

Appeal to consequences

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, 2 January 2026
Line 204:		Line 204:
	Is an argument that concludes that a proposition is true or false based on whether believing it to be true or false would lead to desirable or undesirable consequences. An argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making and abstract ethics. But in debates this is often based on an ''appeal to emotion'', typically appeal to fear (it's a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by attempting to increase fear towards an alternative). Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.		Is an argument that concludes that a proposition is true or false based on whether believing it to be true or false would lead to desirable or undesirable consequences. An argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making and abstract ethics. But in debates this is often based on an ''appeal to emotion'', typically appeal to fear (it's a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by attempting to increase fear towards an alternative). Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

	For example ~~somebody present~~ research evidence indicating a lack of proof for minor-adult sex related trauma, and the reply is:		For example, someone presents research evidence indicating a lack of proof for minor-adult sex related trauma, and the reply is:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	<font color="green">'''''Your evidence is interesting, but we cannot acknowledge that trauma has not been demonstrated, because acknowledging this would lead to an increase in rape.</blockquote>		<font color="green">'''''Your evidence is interesting, but we cannot acknowledge that trauma has not been demonstrated, because acknowledging this would lead to an increase in rape.</blockquote>

Thorn: /* Wishful thinking */

2026-01-02T20:07:50Z

Wishful thinking

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:07, 2 January 2026
Line 200:		Line 200:
	<font color="green">'''''What is so special about sex that makes it have serious long-term consequences? I can't think of anything. Thus sex never has especially serious long-term consequences.'''''</font>		<font color="green">'''''What is so special about sex that makes it have serious long-term consequences? I can't think of anything. Thus sex never has especially serious long-term consequences.'''''</font>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

			== Appeal to consequences ==
			Is an argument that concludes that a proposition is true or false based on whether believing it to be true or false would lead to desirable or undesirable consequences. An argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making and abstract ethics. But in debates this is often based on an ''appeal to emotion'', typically appeal to fear (it's a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by attempting to increase fear towards an alternative). Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

			For example somebody present research evidence indicating a lack of proof for minor-adult sex related trauma, and the reply is:
			<blockquote>
			<font color="green">'''''Your evidence is interesting, but we cannot acknowledge that trauma has not been demonstrated, because acknowledging this would lead to an increase in rape.</blockquote>

	== Continuum fallacy ==		== Continuum fallacy ==

Thorn: /* Argument from anecdote */

2025-12-28T10:40:31Z

Argument from anecdote

@@ Line 358: / Line 358: @@
 <font color="green">'''''I don't trust these studies much, I worked with many CSA victims and they mostly feel they were damaged.'''''</font>
 </blockquote>
 ==See also==

Thorn: /* See also */

2025-12-28T09:11:13Z

Thorn: /* False analogy */

2025-12-28T08:59:10Z

False analogy

@@ Line 332: / Line 332: @@
 </blockquote>
-== False analogy ==
+== Faulty generalization ==
 An argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited. Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy, including:
 *the relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion,
@@ Line 341: / Line 344: @@
 <blockquote>
 <font color="green">'''''Yes, sexual contacts with minors is observed in certain tribes and have occurred in certain cultures in human history. However, cannibalism was also practiced in the past.'''''</font>
 </blockquote>

Thorn: /* Loaded label */

2025-12-28T08:38:21Z

Loaded label

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:38, 28 December 2025
Line 330:		Line 330:

	<font color="green">'''''— No. First, there are no 'adult-minor sex' — only child sexual abuse by definition. The dynamics of abusive relationship inevitably result in harm.'''''</font>		<font color="green">'''''— No. First, there are no 'adult-minor sex' — only child sexual abuse by definition. The dynamics of abusive relationship inevitably result in harm.'''''</font>
			</blockquote>

			== False analogy ==
			An argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited. Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy, including:
			*the relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion,
			*the degree of relevant similarity (or difference) between the two objects,
			*and the amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy.
			An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. For example:

			<blockquote>
			<font color="green">'''''Yes, sexual contacts with minors is observed in certain tribes and have occurred in certain cultures in human history. However, cannibalism was also practiced in the past.'''''</font>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Thorn: /* Kettle logic */

2025-12-28T08:16:47Z

Kettle logic

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 28 December 2025
Line 230:		Line 230:
	Using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position. Victimologists often use in a given dialogue such contradicting statements as:		Using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position. Victimologists often use in a given dialogue such contradicting statements as:

	<blockquote><font color="green">'''''1. We have to defend child's sexual autonomy and help to develop their sexual agency. So we have to teach them say NO.'''''</font>		<blockquote>
	~~</blockquote>~~		<font color="green">'''''1. We have to defend child's sexual autonomy and help to develop their sexual agency. So we have to teach them say NO.'''''</font>
	~~<blockquote>~~<font color="green">'''''2. Kids can't consent. They are immature to make choices. It is the responsibility of the adults to take decisions on their behalf.'''''</font>
	~~</blockquote>~~		<font color="green">'''''2. Kids can't consent. They are immature to make choices. It is the responsibility of the adults to take decisions on their behalf.'''''</font>
	~~<blockquote>~~<font color="green">'''''3. Little kids just don't want sex and don't like sex.'''''</font>
	~~</blockquote>~~		<font color="green">'''''3. Little kids just don't want sex and don't like sex.'''''</font>
	~~<blockquote>~~<font color="green">'''''4. If a child is interested in sex, it is most likely a consequence of sexual abuse.'''''</font>
			<font color="green">'''''4. If a child is interested in sex, it is most likely a consequence of sexual abuse.'''''</font>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Thorn: /* Circular reasoning */

2025-12-28T08:14:58Z

Circular reasoning

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:14, 28 December 2025
Line 311:		Line 311:
	The problem is that it is unclear why, in the case of MAPs, the absence of data should justify denying access to psychotherapy or receiving compassion, when for other groups this question is not even raised. The type of attraction alone suddenly warrants special treatment. Such question is not even considered in the case of heterosexual men, despite male heterosexuality being a major "risk factor" for sexual or physical abuse. Likewise, it is not considered in the case of motherhood, although motherhood constitutes one of the main correlates for infanticide. It would clearly be unethical to pose the problem this way.		The problem is that it is unclear why, in the case of MAPs, the absence of data should justify denying access to psychotherapy or receiving compassion, when for other groups this question is not even raised. The type of attraction alone suddenly warrants special treatment. Such question is not even considered in the case of heterosexual men, despite male heterosexuality being a major "risk factor" for sexual or physical abuse. Likewise, it is not considered in the case of motherhood, although motherhood constitutes one of the main correlates for infanticide. It would clearly be unethical to pose the problem this way.

	== Circular reasoning ==		== Improper premise ==
			=== Circular reasoning ===
	"Сircle in proving" also known as circular logic is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.		"Сircle in proving" also known as circular logic is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Line 320:		Line 321:

	In this case the prohibition is itself the behavioral aspect of stigma an the cause of the shame. In other words, "it is harmful because of shame, and since it is harmful, we should shame it".		In this case the prohibition is itself the behavioral aspect of stigma an the cause of the shame. In other words, "it is harmful because of shame, and since it is harmful, we should shame it".

			=== Loaded label ===
			The use of evocative terms to support a conclusion. The term's connotations are relied on to sway the argument towards a particular conclusion.

			<blockquote>
			<font color="green">'''''— Can we imagine that in some cases adult-minor sex is not harmful? '''''</font>

			<font color="green">'''''— No. First, there are no 'adult-minor sex' — only child sexual abuse by definition. The dynamics of abusive relationship inevitably result in harm.'''''</font>
			</blockquote>

	==See also==		==See also==

Jim Burton at 07:36, 28 December 2025

2025-12-28T07:36:09Z

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 An argument is not made any more or less valid because someone likes or dislikes the perceived motive of its proponent. The argument is regularly put forward as a distraction technique by individuals who believe that minor-attracted people "can not be neutral" in debates concerning their own issues. Whether or not this is the case, and whether or not anyone is arguing with an agenda - covert or otherwise, it is totally irrelevant to the actual debate.
 '''...Authority'''
@@ Line 174: / Line 194: @@
 == Wishful thinking ==
 Is a fallacy of relevance where an opponent bases an argument on what they would ''like'' to believe rather than what (if anything) is most likely. Whilst a logically fallacious committal ("I believe in X and therefore Y will happen") to this argument is rare, the cognitive bias is popular in [[Child Sexual Abuse|CSA]] theorists. One interesting point is that for CSA theorists, the natural consequence of ''wishful thinking'' is in effect the ''worst possible scenario'' for all children who have been sexually involved with or abused by an adult. [[Bruce Rind]] points out that his APA-reviewed study was not accepted as the "good news" it should have been. This begs the question, "who are the real child abusers?".
 And vice versa:

Jim Burton: /* Circular reasoning */

2025-12-28T07:28:44Z

Circular reasoning

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:28, 28 December 2025
Line 320:		Line 320:

	In this case the prohibition is itself the behavioral aspect of stigma an the cause of the shame. In other words, "it is harmful because of shame, and since it is harmful, we should shame it".		In this case the prohibition is itself the behavioral aspect of stigma an the cause of the shame. In other words, "it is harmful because of shame, and since it is harmful, we should shame it".

	~~<blockquote>~~
	~~<font color="green">'''''~~

	~~'''''</font>~~
	~~</blockquote>~~

	==See also==		==See also==

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:11, 28 December 2025
Line 362:		Line 362:

	*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]] - similar to fallacious lines of reasoning.		*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]] - similar to fallacious lines of reasoning.

			== Extermal links ==
			*The description of the fallacies in this article is largely drawn from Wikipedia - [[wikipedia: List_of_fallacies\| List of fallacies]]

	==References==		==References==

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]][[Category:Logic]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]][[Category:Logic]]