Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby kiryan » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:03 am

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/19/g ... ren.dress/

Her beautiful, long blond hair was braided back a la Bo Derek in the movie "10" (or for the younger set, Christina Aguilera during her "Xtina" phase). Her lips were pink and shiny from the gloss, and her earrings dangled playfully from her lobes.

== oh yea

You can tell she had been vacationing somewhere warm, because you could see her deep tan around her midriff thanks to the halter top and the tight sweatpants that rested just a little low on her waist. The icing on the cake? The word "Juicy" was written on her backside.

== i've got wood how about you?

Yeah, that 8-year-old girl was something to see alright. ... I hope her parents are proud. Their daughter was the sexiest girl in the terminal, and she's not even in middle school yet.

== fuk busted as a pedophile. truth be told, its happened to me more than a few times at the mall, usually some little hispanic thing at the mall with large Cs then she turns her head and I'm like damn is she even 10.

It's easy to blast companies for introducing the sexy wear, but our ire really should be directed at the parents who think low rise jeans for a second grader is cute. They are the ones who are spending the money to fuel this budding trend. They are the ones who are suppose to decide what's appropriate for their young children to wear, not executives looking to brew up controversy or turn a profit.

== yep. He makes a good point by saying 10 year old girls don't have cash don't have cars don't have jobs...

Now I'm wondering... is this a good candidate for govenrment intervention? Schools won't even let your kids have a home made lunch... CPS can take your kids away for not taking anti depressants...

In 2007, the American Psychological Association's Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls issued a report linking early sexualization with three of the most common mental-health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression.

== well there's my justification, mental health issues! All in the interests of the public good right? Good thing courts have been increasingly supportive of equal treatment of mental health and physical health issues.
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Vigis » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:47 pm

I am not sure what you are looking for in this thread Kiryan.

Are you bemoaning the fact that parents are creating "prostitots" with their daughters? Or are you arguing that they shouldn't have the choice to do so?

I absolutely loathe the whole prostitot thing, but I am never going to support a call for government or any other type of intervention into the parents' choice.

Does it harm the child? Probably, but not in a way that has been measured otherwise you'd see CPS workers following them home, taking them out of their home, and placing them in a religious commune.

You live in Montana now, isn't that Huderite womenswear just the sexiest thing you've ever seen?

It comes down to the same philosophy that I believe most of the country has today - do whatever the hell you want, just don't use my money, don't harm my family, and don't try to push your agenda/beliefs onto me.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:20 am

I think he's just bemoaning terrible parents.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby kiryan » Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:27 am

I am not sure what you are looking for in this thread Kiryan.


== an interesting narrative, poking at the principles of liberal viewpoints trying to stretch them to implausible scenarios in order to demonstrate how crazy they are.

Are you bemoaning the fact that parents are creating "prostitots" with their daughters? Or are you arguing that they shouldn't have the choice to do so?


== mostly i'm highlighting the problem of bad parents. secondly, i'm trying to apply liberal principles in ways they haven't considered because it is a slippery slope.

I absolutely loathe the whole prostitot thing, but I am never going to support a call for government or any other type of intervention into the parents' choice.


== basically i agree, but almost everyone will support an action when the reality offends their sensibilities more than their principle

Does it harm the child? Probably, but not in a way that has been measured otherwise you'd see CPS workers following them home, taking them out of their home, and placing them in a religious commune.


== Just because CPS hasn't moved in this direction... doesn't mean they won't eventually. All they need is a big public story, a willing judge, an activist social worker and a medical opinion a child is being "harmed." That or a fake tip.

You live in Montana now, isn't that Huderite womenswear just the sexiest thing you've ever seen?


== To tell you the truth, I think people should be free to live their lives free from intrusion. But it seems its always the liberals who want to tell you what to smoke, what to eat, what your kids eat, how much electricity to use, which cars to own etc... Sure conservatives have their legislating morality issues, but it pales compared to the libs hipocrisy.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Sarvis » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:17 pm

kiryan wrote:== mostly i'm highlighting the problem of bad parents. secondly, i'm trying to apply liberal principles in ways they haven't considered because it is a slippery slope.


Image

Also, if you have to use outlandish, implausible or impossible scenarios to "prove" how crazy someone's viewpoint is... then how crazy is it, really?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Ragorn » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:24 pm

You realize that "slippery slope" is actually, literally, a logical fallacy right?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby kiryan » Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:59 pm

You recognize that while it may be a logical fallacy, it can also accurately describe reality right?

I'm not trying to win a debate team match.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Sarvis » Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:20 pm

kiryan wrote:You recognize that while it may be a logical fallacy, it can also accurately describe reality right?


No. Refer to the comic above. The entire reason slippery slope is a logical fallacy is that it doesn't happen.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
torkur
Sojourner
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
Contact:

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby torkur » Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:07 pm

kiryan wrote:== To tell you the truth, I think people should be free to live their lives free from intrusion. But it seems its always the liberals who want to tell you what to smoke, what to eat, what your kids eat, how much electricity to use, which cars to own etc... Sure conservatives have their legislating morality issues, but it pales compared to the libs hipocrisy.




"What/Where you can smoke" > "who you can f*ck" according to you now? Wow, you must know about some GOOD weed.....
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:09 am

Hitler: It's just a little Poland...

Later Hitler: It's just a little France too...
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:20 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:You recognize that while it may be a logical fallacy, it can also accurately describe reality right?


No. Refer to the comic above. The entire reason slippery slope is a logical fallacy is that it doesn't happen.


That is delusional.

You don't need to look any farther than the TV and MTV Skins.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:31 pm

kiryan wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:You recognize that while it may be a logical fallacy, it can also accurately describe reality right?


No. Refer to the comic above. The entire reason slippery slope is a logical fallacy is that it doesn't happen.


That is delusional.

You don't need to look any farther than the TV and MTV Skins.


Huh?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:18 pm

What you don't see the slippery slope that began with swearing on TV, then was people sleeping in the same bed, to really swearing on over the air tv, to tv with gratuitious violence and sex, to mtv skins where they got child actors to act out extremely sexual content + celebrate a drug sub culture (yes this is on cable but still)?

No slippery slope there at all. Those people 50 years ago calling for TV to be decent and not to allow a couple to be shown in bed together on TV were probably told by someone like you thats just a slippery slope argument, no validity at all.

pedantic intellectual points of order in arguments reality does not equal.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:53 pm

kiryan wrote:What you don't see the slippery slope that began with swearing on TV, then was people sleeping in the same bed, to really swearing on over the air tv, to tv with gratuitious violence and sex, to mtv skins where they got child actors to act out extremely sexual content + celebrate a drug sub culture (yes this is on cable but still)?


So your stance is that because a swear word was allowed on TV there is now sexual content on TV.

Prove it. Prove that allowing swearing led the way to two people sharing a bed on TV.

Prove that two people sharing a bed on TV (which is a natural occurance in marriage and relationships) wouldn't have happened anyway.

In fact, after a little poking around it seems that swearing on TV actually came AFTER sex on TV. Much, much after... like 30 years. So maybe you should try that two people sleeping in the same bed caused swearing.

While you're at it, you might want to try and figure out why violence is ok on American TV but shunned on European TV, while sex (including full nudity) is allowed in Europe but not in America. Shouldn't one of these things slide to the other on a slippery slope?

Let's give you an example:

A blue sedan and a motorcycle approach an intersection, neither stops and there is an accident.
Two weeks later a semi and a volvo approach the same intersection and there is an accident.

Do you believe that the second accident happened because the first happened? Or is it more likely that there is an issue with the traffic control at that intersection?

It's the same thing with what is allowed on TV. It's unrealistic for people not to swear in situations that would normally warrant it. No one in reality hits their thumb with a hammer and goes "gosh darn!" Ok, maybe a few rare individuals. The point is that it doesn't resonate, it sounds off, it sounds weird. (Personally, I have the same problem with generic labels on TV and actually welcome product placement as being more realistic. People drink budweiser god dammit, not BEER.)

Now sex is different, right? Everyone wants sex, they want to see it, they are turned on by it, they will pay attention to things that are sexy. This is why any new media is almost instantly turned to pornographic use. (I've heard the second movie ever made was a porno, but can't confirm that.) This has nothing to do with swearing, and everything to do with the human libido wanting to see sex.



No slippery slope there at all.


That is correct.

Those people 50 years ago calling for TV to be decent and not to allow a couple to be shown in bed together on TV were probably told by someone like you thats just a slippery slope argument, no validity at all.

pedantic intellectual points of order in arguments reality does not equal.


Ok, so let's say no one had been shown in bed on TV. A few months later there would be a girl in a bikini, or a girl in a jumpsuit dancing sexy. There is not sex on TV because two people were shown in bed together, there is sex on TV because people like sex

And that's your big problem. You say A will automatically lead to B, but fail to understand that underlying causes have to be there for one to go to the other. Will polygamy be legal one day? Maybe, but not because gay marriage gets legalized. It might happen because Mormons have lots of kids and take over the government though.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Ragorn » Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:58 pm

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. The fact that you want to spend a page trying to prove that it's a legitimate argument is proof that there is no point in arguing with you.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:27 pm

Ragorn wrote:Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. The fact that you want to spend a page trying to prove that it's a legitimate argument is proof that there is no point in arguing with you.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Slippery slope arguments can vary from outright logical fallacy to informal fallacy to an actual logically valid form.

In you make an argument that an event will lead to a series of events to some conclusion, if you establish the full chain of logical implications, the argument is valid.

In terms of fallacy, there are, of course, levels of invalidity depending on the problem with the specific argument.

Ex.: If you shoot him in the head, it is a slippery slope that will lead to his death.

Obviously, there are people who have survived being shot in the head, making this argument invalid because a headshot does not logically imply death (or, in layman's terms, does not guarantee that the shot victim will die).

This doesn't mean that a more vaguely worded argument cannot be established:

If you shoot him in the head, he's 3.88652x10^7 times more likely to die.

But then you sound like a stupid douche - so really, while you say his argument is invalid as he made it the way you said it, sure, it's 'invalid' but you're also a douchebag and the point he was trying to communicate was simply communicated poorly to someone who could not read it.

And that is: if you shoot him in the head, he's going to die. Really.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Kifle » Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:07 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Ragorn wrote:Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. The fact that you want to spend a page trying to prove that it's a legitimate argument is proof that there is no point in arguing with you.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Slippery slope arguments can vary from outright logical fallacy to informal fallacy to an actual logically valid form.

In you make an argument that an event will lead to a series of events to some conclusion, if you establish the full chain of logical implications, the argument is valid.

In terms of fallacy, there are, of course, levels of invalidity depending on the problem with the specific argument.

Ex.: If you shoot him in the head, it is a slippery slope that will lead to his death.

Obviously, there are people who have survived being shot in the head, making this argument invalid because a headshot does not logically imply death (or, in layman's terms, does not guarantee that the shot victim will die).

This doesn't mean that a more vaguely worded argument cannot be established:

If you shoot him in the head, he's 3.88652x10^7 times more likely to die.

But then you sound like a stupid douche - so really, while you say his argument is invalid as he made it the way you said it, sure, it's 'invalid' but you're also a douchebag and the point he was trying to communicate was simply communicated poorly to someone who could not read it.

And that is: if you shoot him in the head, he's going to die. Really.


Actually, in logic, either an argument is valid or invalid -- there are no degrees. The truth of an argument, however, can have varying degrees; however, I'm not sure if you're just switching the two here.

In the case of slippery slope, it is always invalid as a logical argument form. The reason for this is that the consequent is pure conjecture through inductive reasoning. Predictive theory is induction, and, thus, is subject to unknowns. This leads to the truth rather than the validity of the argument having varying degrees.

Now, your example is not an example of slippery slope. You're drawing a direct consequence through deductive reasoning. We know more than enough to draw the conclusion due to very solid biological and physical science. Sure, the consequent appears to be inductive, but that is really not the case -- and I'd rather not have to go into specifics of why here. In Kiryan's argument, though, the antecedent does not link directly to the consequent given any current knowledge we have concerning the causes of the consequent. In your example, we have an enormous amount of knowledge of the causes of the consequent directly linked to the antecedent. Therefore, Kiryan is using a slipper slope while you are using a valid form.

I think the confusion for most people not having proper fundamental logic education is that both arguments are forms of the valid modus ponens form; which is why slippery slope is an informal fallacy rather than a formal fallacy like affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent (relating to both modus ponens and modus tollens).
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Another lesson in bad parenting or do we need more laws?

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:35 pm

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Ragorn wrote:Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. The fact that you want to spend a page trying to prove that it's a legitimate argument is proof that there is no point in arguing with you.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Slippery slope arguments can vary from outright logical fallacy to informal fallacy to an actual logically valid form.

In you make an argument that an event will lead to a series of events to some conclusion, if you establish the full chain of logical implications, the argument is valid.

In terms of fallacy, there are, of course, levels of invalidity depending on the problem with the specific argument.

Ex.: If you shoot him in the head, it is a slippery slope that will lead to his death.

Obviously, there are people who have survived being shot in the head, making this argument invalid because a headshot does not logically imply death (or, in layman's terms, does not guarantee that the shot victim will die).

This doesn't mean that a more vaguely worded argument cannot be established:

If you shoot him in the head, he's 3.88652x10^7 times more likely to die.

But then you sound like a stupid douche - so really, while you say his argument is invalid as he made it the way you said it, sure, it's 'invalid' but you're also a douchebag and the point he was trying to communicate was simply communicated poorly to someone who could not read it.

And that is: if you shoot him in the head, he's going to die. Really.


Actually, in logic, either an argument is valid or invalid -- there are no degrees. The truth of an argument, however, can have varying degrees; however, I'm not sure if you're just switching the two here.

In the case of slippery slope, it is always invalid as a logical argument form. The reason for this is that the consequent is pure conjecture through inductive reasoning. Predictive theory is induction, and, thus, is subject to unknowns. This leads to the truth rather than the validity of the argument having varying degrees.

Now, your example is not an example of slippery slope. You're drawing a direct consequence through deductive reasoning. We know more than enough to draw the conclusion due to very solid biological and physical science. Sure, the consequent appears to be inductive, but that is really not the case -- and I'd rather not have to go into specifics of why here. In Kiryan's argument, though, the antecedent does not link directly to the consequent given any current knowledge we have concerning the causes of the consequent. In your example, we have an enormous amount of knowledge of the causes of the consequent directly linked to the antecedent. Therefore, Kiryan is using a slipper slope while you are using a valid form.

I think the confusion for most people not having proper fundamental logic education is that both arguments are forms of the valid modus ponens form; which is why slippery slope is an informal fallacy rather than a formal fallacy like affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent (relating to both modus ponens and modus tollens).

I understand your formal explanation of the slippery slope to be correct, that if a statement is a valid argument, it's not technically a 'slippery slope' fallacy, but the slippery slope fallacy and the logical argument could be the same word-for-word statement (where the logical argument is followed by the deductive reasoning that establishes the full chain of resulting events as predicted by the original statement).

As for the degrees of validity, I was speaking to Kiryan's point rather than his specific argument, or more toward the truth than the simple yes or no of logical validity. I should have stated that differently.

Finally, my example does use inductive reasoning. That tremendous knowledge of biology is not available to the vast majority of people that would say something like that, especially as their education usually consists of prime time television.

While a doctor could have made the argument with deductive reasoning, the layman only has cultural references and heresay to rely upon when saying that a headshot will kill a person (an incorrect conclusion in the first place, and made due to their inductive reasoning).

In summary, a word-for-word statement can be made by deductive or inductive reasoning - it depends on who's making it and what they know when they state it.

For example: "A new timing belt will get your car running correctly."

Made by a mechanic that knows that all cars need functional timing belts and observed that this car's timing belt is broken - deductive.

Made by some dude that knows that all cars need functional timing belts, and has been in a car that sounded similar with a broke timing belt - inductive.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest