Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality

Logical fallacies (see also) are arguments whose premises somehow fail to support their conclusions. In debate, these fallacies tend to be based on inference (informal fallacies) rather than explicitly stated in the strict, logically fallacious sense (formal fallacies). They are easy to learn and on the whole, very easy to spot thereafter. Identifying and deconstructing fallacious arguments should be an important part of your debate strategy. Using fallacious arguments - especially those hard to detect ones grounded in rhetoric and vague implications is a discipline in which many seasoned politicians, pundits and public speakers have become grand masters.

This page lists a number of common fallacies of argumentation.

Strawman

The strawman is a common logical fallacy, composed of an exaggerated, caricatured or ludicrous version of someone else's argument. The argument can be made just to look ridiculous:

The censorers are coming! They're going to stop the free exercise of "luring" little kids into pornography or sex slavery! GAWD HELP US ALLL!1111 (DaninGraniteCity, IIDB, 2006)

Alternatively, a straw man argument may be actively dissected. For example, someone may establish that an opponent advocates the sexual coercion of children, when in fact they support no law that requires children to behave sexually at all. These arguments should not be defended by those who have been misread. It should also be noted that opponents sometimes show extremely irrational thought patterns that can be rationally extended towards an equally absurd conclusion.

Biased sample

Pedophile:

There is no way of knowing for sure if certain pathological traits are represented in the population of pedophiles, and by that I mean individuals who have a sexual preference for prepubescent children.

Doctor:

You are incorrect about these child-attracted pedophiles. In fact, pedophiles have been clinically proven to exhibit [Recites a list of Gene Abel and James Cantor studies based on (non representative) clinical and criminal samples]''

Doctor's argument is fallacious as it uses the clinical dogma surrounding what Abel labels a pedophile to impose his prejudices onto the pedophile's chosen sample. Doctor's argument would not be fallacious if his first sentence instead read: "Your description of a pedophile is inadequate".

Ad lapidem (absurdity)

Dismissing a claim as patently absurd is fallacious as an argument: Rigid rules about "how something should be" often run into trouble when acknowledged exceptions are nevertheless included on technical grounds.

Your claim that mothers and nannies have masturbated infants throughout history is so absurd, so obviously false that it requires no proper rebuttal.

Destroying the exception

The arbitrary dogma surrounding categories such as "child molester" and "child sexual abuse" is given as the reason we should equally condemn cases we know deep down, are not stereotypically abusive.

Child molesters deserve the death penalty. Whatever you say about Debra Lafave, she is a child molester, period. Tough luck for her. She must be punished by death.

Ad nauseum

The assertion or implication that an argument's repetition increases its validity or pertinence, or the repetition of such an argument itself, is a fallacious argument. This is a frequent occurence in the debate on minor-adult sexualities, since many individuals dogmatically refuse to question underlying concepts such as trauma, abuse and the special necessity of "informed" (legal) consent in sexual relations. When an opponent such as Sabine Grant is claiming to have been ignored despite ad nauseum repetition, the fallaciousness of their argument depends on whether their opponent has addressed the argument in a non-evasive way.

As I have said before, and will continue to say, children under the age of sixteen are psychologically inferior and unable to give their consent for sexual activities. Given the number of times I have repeated this argument, I find it strange that you have not been able to grasp this concept.

From the pen of "Sabine Grant" (actual replies):

You seem to not have grasped what I actually developed on earlier [...] I thought I had already expanded in this thread as to why most rape victims [...] I will refer you back to the links I have posted earlier as to the most commonly experienced psychological/emotional senses among rape victims [...] If you do take the time to in fact consult my links you will find that the sense of "sexual violation" and "sexual debilitation" is NOT isolated from other factors as being purely a sexually lived experience. Usually when I post links it is for the purpose of documentation and not merely to fill space in a thread.

No matter how "consenting" the child appears to be, such child 's hormonal, physiological,mental and emotional status are inferior to an adult's. You seem to not recognize those scientifically supported realities even though they were demonstrated to you in other threads. [...] It has been a constant for you to DENY the exploitative aspect of such adult/children rapports. No matter which efforts have been deployed by me to document my counter claim that they are exploitative.

If your opponent's contributions are respectable in temper, but unreasoned and repetitive, do not shy away from mentioning this before you, yourself are made to look monotonous. Explain in an impersonal and calm way, how such assertions are not good enough to stand up against reason or persuade you. Do not label and attack your opponent or directly address their arguments with unnecessary hyperbole, as this creates the perception of a person who is overly invested in the outcomes of their own arguments.

Genetic fallacies

Genetic fallacies are fallacies of irrelevance where conclusions are derived from something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

Ad hominem

A personal attack or ad hominem argument is fallacious as it derives no value from the merits of its opponent's argument. A number of later discussed association fallacies have personal appeal and are therefore ad hominems. A general example follows:

Some decades ago, Mr Green, you argued for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. As I'm sure my friends at NARTH would agree, you, Mr Green hardly cut a moral or authoritative figure in the human sciences. Now, tell us why we are to listen to your latest musings on pedophilia and why these arguments should be seen to hold up whatsoever.

Association fallacy

Genetic-type fallacy (naffoundation.org)

Guilt by association:

Nikki Craft attempts to discredit the late Ralph Underwager by referring to his interview with Paidika, and Paul Okami by suggesting that undesirable groups use his work to their advantage. None of this alters Underwager or Okami's arguments, or their merit.

Honor by association:

Lisa M. Jones is a student of David Finkelhor who is an exemplary researcher on child sexual abuse. How could you possibly criticise her good work, in light of this!?

Style over substance

This argument is a fallacious line of reasoning, which may state for example, that "you called me dirty names while saying 2+2=4, therefore 2+2=7" or "I don't like the way you phrased your explanation of how a car engine works, therefore it runs on water."

Frans Gieles makes some translation errors in the English section of his website. I find that this discredits his work.

An opponent is seen as "wrong" because of his or her style.

You use the term abusively and liberally and based on your own prejudice that child protective services and their assigned professionals suffer of "hysteria" and are "indoctrinated". Yet you have not provided any evidence to support such derogative and insulting assertions on the account of such professionals and such services.

An opponent "needs to provide evidence" because of his or her style. Both are fallacious arguments.

Appeal to...

...Motive

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.

...Consequences

Is a fallacious and often emotionally-charged argument. It often involves subjective value-judgements for or against the consequences:

Keep on arguing it's OK to lust after and fuck kids, and there's only one place you will end up. IN JAIL with all the other supporters of your "MAP Manifesto".

Or:

Avoiding sex until you reach the age of consent will lead to a happier, more wholesome life and helps avoid teen pregnancies, which are a social problem. Therefore your argument is false.

As can be seen, both of these arguments are also based on basic non-sequiturs.

...Incredulity

When someone can't imagine something to be true, and therefore deems it false, or conversely, holds that it must be true because they can't see how it could be false.

I can't imagine how a minor would be attracted to an older person or how sex could be harmless or beneficial for minors, so it can't happen.

...Authority

The DSM says that pedophilia is a mental disorder, so it must be.

Appeals to authority are often grounded in superficially solid but ever-changing authority consensuses. The DSM for example, once classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Unquestioning trust of authority often does little more than validate status-quo moral consensus, and is therefore a highly unreliable method of argument, relying on culturally and historically biased information.

...e.g., Liberal Authority

Most swingers (who are "sexually liberated" people) think lowly of sex with minors.

The swingers, with whom the ultimate title of 'sexual liberation' is wrongly identified, allegedly 'think lowly' of minor-adult sexual relations, which must therefore be false ideals of liberation. The 'swinger' argument is also faulty because swinging is just one liberated subculture, one thread of the cloth. The argument also puts beliefs into our swingers' heads, when in fact, they may be even more liberal on this topic, for whatever reason. If this is so, maybe we are more "entitled" to use this fallacy!

...Tradition.

Human societies have always protected their young. So why should they just suddenly stop now?

As well as being incorrect and based upon an ethnocentric view of "protection", the argument ultimately collapses because a practise has no inherent value simply because it is the "done thing". Value must be presented and not assumed.

...Emotion

There is an endless list of fallacious appeals to emotion:

Fear:

Your point about the assumed nativity of sexual trauma in masturbated children is well taken. However, if it is true, we are confronted with the frankly scary situation of having been wrong all along and having to deconstruct a taboo of sexual horror. It is for this reason that I think the "ick factor" really is relevant to this debate.

Pity:

How dare you rant on about the merits of your adult "lover" when you were only ten years old! I have already presented you with the story of my daughter who was tied up, gagged and gang raped by a satanic cult. DOES THIS NOT DESERVE SOME SYMPATHY!?!

Flattery:

Surely someone as intelligent of you would not support this stupid proposal to disseminate pornography to minors!

Nature:

As adult-juvenile sex is not seen in nature/serves no natural purpose, it can never be good or proper.

As Richard Green says: Watch out, homosexuals!^[1]

Ridicule:

As for your lame, bizzarro, crank, naive theory, whatever! Grow up and see it from the perspective of a normal person, then report back.

Novelty:

The studies used in the Rind meta-analysis are decades out of date and therefore useless.

Besides the need to explain how Rind's lost decades are unique to his study, this fallacious argument does not explain how the findings of a study are non-applicable to today's situation and lacking any alternative use such as measuring a potential lack of harm.

Well poisoning

Sometimes, an opponent may present unfavourable information about an opponent before considering the merits of any of his or her arguments:

Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.

Differences and comparisons

False dichotomy

The false dichotomy is a fallacy in setting only two possible outcomes to a question. These two possible outcomes are most often in conflict with each other and generally serve to restrict debate and swing it in favour of the person setting the question. Anti pedophile "scientists" and pundits (e.g. Stephanie Dallam) are notorious for dichotomising issues, as are their anti-gay predecessors (e.g. Edmund Bergler).

False compromise

A false compromise argument will typically assume that a position in between two stated extremes is automatically superior by virtue of it being more moderate. It can be used to reclaim lost ground after strong arguments made by opponents. For example:

The subject of ritual cult abuse of children is so loathsome and provocative that it is at risk of being regarded only in extremes. Those drawn into believing that there is such a thing become fascinated and terrified by its limitless implications while those who remain skeptical seem determined to quash and disqualify any evidence that it might exist. Most of those who believe have been personally touched and emotionally moved by association with alleged victims, while the skeptics enjoy the luxury of analyzing the phenomena in retrospect from a distance that passes for objectivity. Both sides of this divergent drift seem reluctant to acknowledge a possible intermediate reality: that while some aspects of the accounts are patently impossible, there remains an elusive core of sadistic obscenity. (Roland Summit^[2]).

Compromise can not be assumed more likely to bare truth when neither extreme has been addressed by the argument.

Darkside/OTOH fallacy

Often used in state/establishment media soundbites and policy literature - this lazy rhetorical fallacy is a cliché feature of British Social Theory texts. It implies that by conceding a "hard truth" on one side of the argument, we have validated or rendered equally important a counterpoint, and often (without critique) the institutional response to the counterpoint:

Of course, it can not be disputed that the internet has opened up "exciting new opportunities" for young people. However, with these benefits doubtless come considerable public health risks to well-being of children and vulnerable adults in particular. Careful regulation by the appropriate authorities is therefore a responsible middle-ground.

This above argument is employed by pro-establishment Science and Tech Educators such as Tanya Byron.

Non sequitur fallacy

Is a basic fallacy where the conclusion does not follow from a single premise:

I've seen first hand, families torn apart in the court system following allegations of statutory rape against teachers and youth leaders. If you knew of these consequences, you would agree that consensual sex between adults and teens must remain a crime.

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 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:

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.

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:

Your evidence is interesting, but we cannot acknowledge that trauma has not been demonstrated, because acknowledging this would lead to an increase in rape.

Continuum fallacy

Continuum fallacy (also known as the fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, or decision-point fallacy) cause one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity. The fallacy is the argument that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states.

Even if a minor-adult sexual relationship appears absolutely non-abusive at a given point, there is no guarantee that abuse will not emerge later. Moreover, minor abuse can escalate over time into more severe forms. Therefore, such a relationship can never be considered safe.

Or:

So you don’t think sexual messages are that serious? Then maybe unwanted touching is no big deal either? Might as well go ahead and legalize rape, then.

Vice versa:

There is no magical number at which people begin to consent. Thus, the age of consent is totally meaningless.

Intentionality fallacy

The insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated.

Rind did not advocate for AMSC, he was just doing science. Thus, it is wrong to use his works to defend pro-choice positions.

Kettle logic

Using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position. Victimologists often use in a given dialogue such contradicting statements as:

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

Mind projection fallacy

A person believes in factual claims solely based on mental or sensory experiences, which are often interpreted as objective properties. That is, someone's subjective judgments are "projected" to be inherent properties of an object, rather than being related to personal perception. One consequence is that others may be assumed to share the same perception, or that they are irrational or misinformed if they do not.

Stop throwing those stupid studies at me. I am a victim of CSA. I can say that it’s an awful experience.

Many CSA victims believe they are not traumatized because they just suppress their trauma.

Moralistic fallacy

The inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction (e.g.: inferring is from ought).

I don’t believe it’s that harmless at all. harmless. If it weren’t harmful, it wouldn’t be prohibited.

Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy:

Since no comparable form of this behavior exists in nature, it is unclear why people should be required to tolerate it.

and vice versa:

Many species exhibit this behavior in nature, but only humans have decided to ban it. Nonsense!

Nirvana fallacy

Solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect (perfect-solution fallacy).

MAP activists' efforts might help a few people, but it’s still just a drop in the ocean. You will never reach wide acceptance.

Or:

By your data, the likelihood of recidivism among sexual offenders may be low, but it is not zero. Hence, temporary restrictions are still inadequate.

Proving too much

An argument that results in an overly generalized conclusion. For example:

Adult-minor relationships are wrong because of the power imbalance, which makes it inherently abusive.

lead to conclusion that traditional families where the man has the power, parenthood, employment and all imaginable asymmetrical relationships are wrong and inherently abusive.

Slippery slope

Asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.

The experience of the sexual gratifying of an adult teach minors to be sexual pleasers. They end up not knowing their own desires, developing sexual dysfunction, unhappy married, being sex workers, taking drugs and attempting suicide.

AI child porn and sex dolls can't harm anybody, but legalizing this opens the floodgates to child rape acceptance.

Special pleading

A person claims an exception to a general or universal principle, but the exception is unjustified. It applies a double standard. For example:

We do not know whether psychotherapy [here, the reference is to standard therapy without a prevention focus, or, in some cases, even to basic compassion] increases the risk of criminal behavior in pedophiles; therefore, we should deny them access to psychotherapy.

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.

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.

For example discussion on harm and secondary harm often end up with:

It is possible that the entirety of the harm arises from stigma and shame surrounding this behavior. Nevertheless, this harm is real, and for that reason the prohibition remains justified.

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.

— Can we imagine that in some cases adult-minor sex is not harmful?
— No. First, there are no 'adult-minor sex' — only child sexual abuse by definition. The dynamics of abusive relationship inevitably result in harm.

Faulty generalization

Reaching a conclusion from weak premises.

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:

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.

Argument from anecdote

A fallacy where anecdotal evidence (individual, personal experiences, or observations) is presented as an argument equivalent to scholarly method, without any other contributory evidence or reasoning.

Typical example in discussion on evidence of harm:

These studies are interesting, of course, but I personally know someone who was deeply affected by CSA.

Psychotherapists:

I don't trust these studies much, I worked with many CSA victims and they mostly feel they were damaged.

Questionable cause

Questionable cause is a general type of error with many variants. Its primary basis is the confusion of association with causation, either by inappropriately deducing (or rejecting) causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect. Not only lay people, but academicians often jump to conclusions with these type of errors discussing research results. This type of error constitutes one of the major methodological flaws in the research on CSA effect. These errors are primarily addressed in our sections:

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Latin for "with this, therefore because of this" (correlation implies causation) – a faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other. Many academic articles on CSA begin by stating that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that CSA associated to devastating consequences, thus postulating the high problematic nature of this behavior. Despite the fact that none of the studies has established causality.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (temporal sequence implies causation) – a faulty assumption that if Y happened after X; therefore X caused Y. Sometimes reference is made to longitudinal studies that track an association between a prior event and a subsequent one, while obscuring the fact that third variables may account for the occurrence of both events in a person’s life history - first one and then the other - without any causal relationship between them.

Wrong direction

Cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa. The consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. For example, studies on the harms of pornography use and masturbation often report associations with depression and reduced sexual functioning within couples. However, more careful analyses may suggest that depression, poor relationship quality, and dissatisfaction with partnered sex are more likely to lead to increased pornography use, rather than the other way around. Similarly, psychosocial adversity and insecure attachment in children may drive them to seek additional attachment outside their parental relationship through sexual encounters with adults.

Fallacy of the single cause

It is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes. Studies that take polyvictimization into account repeatedly show that a single event—or even repeated exposure to a single type of event—is unlikely to result in trauma. Rather, the development of adverse outcomes reflects the cumulative impact of dozens of adverse experiences in childhood and across the entire life course up to the point of assessment.

Extermal links

The description of the fallacies in this article is largely drawn from Wikipedia - List of fallacies

References

[1] SOT: Green Letter

[2] Summit - The Dark Tunnels of McMartin Dr. Roland C. Summit Journal of Psychohistory

[1]

[2]