doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[doubtingthomas]

Let's look at the most famous example of a complex question fallacy:

Here's an obvious fallacy, "Your obsession with teenage girls is designed to get a reaction and I originally bit." - Dr. Exiled

Are you going to point that out to him?

Why do you persist in lying about me? I was talking about 20-year-old girls in my opening posts; you guys brought up the teen girls.

[Gadianton]

The post you quoted was an accusation. It may be true or false, but it isn't a fallacy. An accusation that is factually incorrect isn't a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy makes a claim incoherent or meaningless, or otherwise problematic such that you don't get to the part about investigating facts.

If the above accusation was made during a conversation about semi trucks to discredit your arguments on big rigs, it would be a clear ad hominem. In general, I don't call out ad hom's or strawmen or a bunch of other fallacies because they are so prevalent in heated conversations and people can generally find their way around them. Besides, it would be stones in glass houses for me because I'm the king of committing some of those on purpose, such as just recently when I called MG a 6-day-creationist.

I was talking about 20-year-old girls in my opening posts; you guys brought up the teen girls.

This may be a good exit point because funny enough, when you began this discussion I was shaking my head with that claim of yours. The problem is, DT, you have a history of other kinds of discussion a stone's throw away. Here's what I've thought all along, and now that you're bringing up your original claim, maybe I should just come clean with what I think and then exit.

I think the "older men dating 20-25 girls is taboo in our society" is a smokescreen. I could be wrong, okay? I admit this is my own opinion. But I think that was a smokescreen. I don't think that's your real concern. I think Dr. E is right that somehow, that discussion is meant to either connect with at a future point; or in some other way be commentary on relationships with girls under 18. Like I say, I could be wrong, I'm just saying this has been my impression. But, wherever this is going -- and again, I could be wrong about where this is going -- it's getting so bogged down that it's not going anywhere. Maybe a good time for me to drop out?

Hey -- look at those two threads you started in Terrestrial about the important geopolitical idea of population collapse? I stayed completely out of them to make sure I didn't influence the discussion in a bad way. At first I was kind of proud of you, I thought, go DT, you stayed on topic, but sure enough, even with people not from SP forum, the conversation went right to the usual fare of mansphere complaints and the mods merged those here.

So yeah, I would say almost always when you start a topic, it's an artificial topic meant to really be about something else. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that is also true of your initial volley upon your return of complaints about 20-25s with older men as demonized.

(Oh yeah, yes, the last one. Good job. Use that sentence as a model next time you want to make a summary about your position on something.)

[doubtingthomas]

The post you quoted was an accusation. It may be true or false, but it isn't a fallacy. An accusation that is factually incorrect isn't a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy makes a claim incoherent or meaningless, or otherwise problematic such that you don't get to the part about investigating facts.

That's like the complex question fallacy.

You told me, "That's the hard stop for your target audience. Let's look at the most famous example of a complex question fallacy: "When will you stop beating your mother-in-law?" You can't debate when the beating will stop until it's agreed it's happening in the first place. "When will you accept a consensual relationship between a 17-year old and a 26-year old?""

"Your obsession with teenage girls is designed to get a reaction" - Dr Exiled

He's assuming that I do something and attributing a motive to that assumption, so basically, he's making an assumption to an assumption. What happened with "You can't debate when the beating will stop until it's agreed it's happening"?

The problem is, DT, you have a history of other kinds of discussion a stone's throw away. Here's what I've thought all along, and now that you're bringing up your original claim, maybe I should just come clean with what I think and then exit ... that discussion is meant to either connect with at a future point; or in some other way be commentary on relationships with girls under 18

I was just a vulnerable child. Remember, people under 25 are just vulnerable children who don't have their brains fully developed.

If you look at my "history", I have argued that it's okay to date 18-year-olds, or that I would prefer younger women for many reasons. You can't cherry-pick the history, Gadianton. I have never argued that guys should date women under 18. Why don't you analyze my history without cherry picking it?

I did praise some female teachers once, but that was just locker room talk.

So yeah, I would say almost always when you start a topic, it's an artificial topic meant to really be about something else.

That's bull***! I had no plans to have a discussion about my ex. It's your confirmation bias.

Hey -- look at those two threads you started in Terrestrial about the important geopolitical idea of population collapse? I stayed completely out of them to make sure I didn't influence the discussion in a bad way. At first I was kind of proud of you, I thought, go DT, you stayed on topic

How can I stay on topic when people are making a bunch of nasty accusations? Anyways, your favoritism is showing; it's clear you don't have the same standard when engaging in a discussion with other people.

[doubtingthomas]

(Oh yeah, yes, the last one. Good job. Use that sentence as a model next time you want to make a summary about your position on something.)

Whatever, asshole.

[doubtingthomas]

"Florida woman who posed as 14-year-old to molest middle schooler faces additional child sex charges"
https://nypost.com/2024/04/06/us-news/f ... x-charges/

I honestly suspect that these days, more women than men commit statutory rape. It's probably very underreported when women are the offenders.

Moved to megathread as being related to dating/mating habits of women. -- RI

[Chap]

I honestly suspect that these days, more women than men commit statutory rape.

I don't believe the 'honestly' bit.

This nonsense belongs in the megathread.

[IWMP]

Doubting Thomas, this post isn't helping your cause. I think it would be wise to step back from these discussions and get involved in other conversations that don't touch on this subject for a bit. I do feel maybe you have been tarred a little but the way you reply is like giving people ammo to fire at you. I hope me saying this isn't offensive. I do feel for you and I mean well.

But for the sake of replying. I think there are probably more women abusers than we realise. There is a sense of stigma when it comes to this. People assume women are less likely to be like that because they are expected to be nurturing. They also assume men are stronger than women and so women can't be predators to men. Also, men are more likely not to report it.

We have something called Andy's man club in the UK. It's a support group for men being abused and I think it's great. I hope more men open up and share so that they can get help.
I don't know if the world is getting sicker or if there's just more awareness. It's disgusting.

[Some Schmo]

I honestly suspect that these days, more women than men commit statutory rape.

I don't believe the 'honestly' bit.

I honestly suspect DT obsesses over this topic way too much. I've never encountered anyone who put so much effort into defending an imbalance of power in a relationship.

He might as well buy a sex doll. It would give him exactly what he's looking for: a woman who doesn't talk back and has absolutely no opinion of her own. Someone he doesn't have to be interested in beyond her various orifices and her youthful age. Hell, she could be brand new out of the box, an absolute virgin.

That's a win-win between DT and the world's female population.

[IWMP]

I don't believe the 'honestly' bit.

I've never encountered anyone who put so much effort into defending an imbalance of power in a relationship.

Maybe there is something we don't see.
I don't think this thread is defending imbalance. I think it is highlighting imbalance. I think DT is hung up on something. Perhaps we should give him space to explore and work out what it is that is going on? Perhaps because the wall is up, he is trying to break it down and wants to be heard but doesn't feel heard.

I wonder, if writing without the links, without the research and articles. Purely writing about what it is he is trying to say in one go without others attacking (whether they are justified or not). Just write it all out. In order. Save it as a draft until it is done and then share. Because we are seeing bits and pieces and it's all related but not connecting properly.

I don't think he is a pedophile, I don't think he wants to date teenagers. I think he is just not expressing himself clearly and the similar but slightly different topics are making it confusing.

[Some Schmo]

I've never encountered anyone who put so much effort into defending an imbalance of power in a relationship.

Maybe there is something we don't see.

I'm certain that is the case, but if we waited to understand where everyone was coming from before we spoke, nobody would ever say anything. All we can do is comment on what is written here.

And based on what DT has written here, well... it explains why people respond to him the way they do.

I don't think this thread is defending imbalance. I think it is highlighting imbalance. I think DT is hung up on something. Perhaps we should give him space to explore and work out what it is that is going on? Perhaps because the wall is up, he is trying to break it down and wants to be heard but doesn't feel heard.

This thread is part of a larger pattern, and as Chap noted, it should go in the megathread because it's not really off DT's only topic of interest.

I wonder, if writing without the links, without the research and articles. Purely writing about what it is he is trying to say in one go without others attacking (whether they are justified or not). Just write it all out. In order. Save it as a draft until it is done and then share. Because we are seeing bits and pieces and it's all related but not connecting properly.

I've been saying for years, it's ok not to think everything through, because there are too many topics. What I do ask is that if you're going to take a position, that's one of the things you should think through before puking your undigested thoughts in public as though you know what you're talking about. Unless you make it clear you're just spit-balling and not taking a stand, you are better off staying silent on that topic.

DT should heed that advice, but I get the feeling he has a very shallow approach to thinking things through.

I don't think he is a pedophile, I don't think he wants to date teenagers. I think he is just not expressing himself clearly and the similar but slightly different topics are making it confusing.

Well, that's an extremely generous assessment of his posts. Good on ya.