So about that slippery slope fallacy

Post Reply New Topic

Well, when it comes to homosexual marriage, I think we've now seen that the argument that pedophilia may be normalized next...

If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.

The August 17 Baltimore conference is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists. According to the conference brochure, the event will examine “ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process” and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance.

Researchers from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois will be among the panelists at the conference.

B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APA’s definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of “minor-attracted persons” as “inaccurate” and “misleading” because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality.

“It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding,” said Howard Kline, science director of B4U-ACT, in a July 25, 2011 press release. “The proposed new diagnostic criteria specify ages and frequencies with no scientific basis whatsoever.”

The press release announced a letter the group sent to the APA criticizing its approach, and inviting its leaders to participate in the August 17 conference. “The DSM should meet a higher standard than that,” Kline continued. “We can help them, because we are the people they are writing about.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/confe ... z1Vv8LSfWZ

This is precisely the concern that many people that were against homosexual marriage thought would happen. I'm wondering if pro-gay marriage groups are going to show up to express outrage or not.

still a fallacy and still used by fools.
better luck next time.

How is it a fallacy when it turns out to actually happen like people predicted? That isn't a logical argument.

People can argue in whatever crazy, non-sequitur way that they want, but that doesn't mean that the original argument they are trying to piggy-back onto is wrong.

That's like arguing that if some black people protest for the right not to be locked up without a trial, then bank robbers shouldn't have to go to jail either. It doesn't follow.

If gays and their other sympathetic activists don't oppose this and if the APA entertains the idea, then that will be cause for concern. Gays might have to put their money where their mouth is regarding their support of consenting ADULTS sooner than they planned!

I don't see the relation. One is consensual and the other is not.

This does not relate in any direct way to gay marriage. Hence your statement is a non-sequitur. It does not necessarily follow that if we legalize gay marriage that this will be next. The slippery slope fallacy is not always an exercise in fallacious reasoning. Personally I prefer to identify arguments without reference to the fallacy, instead preferring to identify such arguments as a non-sequitur.

If you wanted to argue against marriage from a slippery slope, then you need to use different evidence.

I think you are failing to look at this from a therapeutic perspective.

Having a sexual attraction towards children is not, in and of itself, a wrongful or criminal act. It is the actions that are taken by a person with such a paraphilia that are criminal. A paedophile or a person who is sexually attracted to children (the terms aren't legally equivalent) may work for years with mental health professionals to keep the paraphilia under control, and to avoid criminal behaviour. Such a person is blameless, and should not be equated with people who act on their attraction.

Have you any notion of how many people struggle with paedophilia and successfully restrain themselves from acting on it? I certainly don't. Studies have suggested that there are somewhere between 600,000 and 8,000,000 men in the United States with some degree of sexual attraction to children. Clearly, there are not 600,000 incidents of sexual offences against children. Meanwhile, of those who have committed offences, do you know how many failed to seek help from a doctor because they were ashamed of their feelings? No one can know.

One of the goals of the DSM is to destigmatize mental illness, so that people who are affected by it feel confident that they can consult their doctor, a counsellor or a psychiatrist and receive help in a non-judgemental, professional environment. When we say to a person struggling with paedophilia, "your thoughts and your urges are criminal," we put a barrier in the way of that person's treatment, and we potentially put children at risk as a direct result. When we say to a person struggling with paedophilia, "your throughts and your urges are part of you, and we need to find a way for you to control them so that you don't put yourself in trouble," then we encourage people to seek the help that they need.

And who better to tell us how to get people struggling with an attraction to children to seek help than the people and their helpers?

It's all well and good to be holier-than-thou about not talking to people that you disapprove of. But when your attitude can serve to put people in danger, then maybe it's time to rethink your attitude.

Inuyasha, you have officially gone insane.

This is what I was like when I saw this thread.
VVV
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htzlhTvIQo4&playnext=1&list=PLD08F9777F7010F9D[/youtube]

It is a fallacy because extending marriage to two consenting adults doesn't set a dangerous precedent for pedophilia to be accepted since it has jack s**t to do with pedophilia.

Re Slippery Sloping:

A. Pedophiles as the fad enemy of the day are going to fade out. I do not doubt that there will be pedophiliac rights. It would not have had the run it has if we were not running out of enemies and if it could not be tied to Church

B. I do not know who is next.

C. Things will get worse and people will do abominable things. Nothing new under the sun.

D. At the same time humanity gererally rebounds before going totally of the rails on either side.

E. No, people cannot logically ban what they do NOT want and allow what it happens they do want. But when did people start being logical?

If they actually choose to, lets see if they actually take a stand against this.



That still doesn't make what I said or others have said about the slippery slope a fallacy.

Pointing out the unintended consequences is not a fallacy.

This whole thread feels like a slippery slope.

Unintended consequences logically have to be followed by a dangerous precedent. There is not only a clear line drawn between two consenting adults and an adult molesting a child who is in no position to give consent, but there is also way more acceptance of homosexuality than there is of pedophilia. THEREFORE, accepting homosexuality will not lead to accepting pedophilia. A dangerous precedent has to be set by a blurred and/or thin line, and the line drawn is pretty damn thick and clear

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 24 Aug 2011, 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If they ban same-sex marriage it could be a slippery slope to banning opposite-sex marriage.

Inuyasha is basing his argument on the presumption that homosexuality is a negative, unfortunate, and evil paraphilia.

I'm sure he holds that to be God's truth but for sane people it is debatable.

If you remove that element, any illusion of a slope to be slippery disappears.