Non-arguments - Think of the Children!

Another non-argument, this time the fallacy known as the argument against corruption, which is a very powerful sophist device, since most people dearly love their children.

Find me outside of youtube:

[Bazzabazeman]

Sad how 6 years after uploading, this is all the more relevant. Good video.

[samwallaceart]

*Old vid but I'll comment anyways.* My family's conservative, but they're old-school in the sense that they didn't bullshit me as a kid. They were upfront with me at a very early age "yeah, there are people who don't believe in God, but a lot of them are still good people, " or "yeah, there are people out there who rape kids so be careful" or "yeah, Santa is a marketing mascot; you get presents at Christmas because your parents love you". There are a lot of things that were shitty about my childhood, but that objective grasp on reality I've been prepared for from the age of 5 is one of the greatest gifts my parents ever gave me.

[guydavies]

i am so glad i found your channel. Im from the uk, 48yrs old, keep up the good work my friend.

[clemsonalum]

I was talking geopolitics with someone today who resorted to saying if I hadn't been to a country I couldn't comment on it (of course when we happened to be discussing a country he had been to and I hadn't). As the conversation progressed more countries came up and of course I threw it right back at him over and over again. Was kinda fun, I would never resort to that but he was so obnoxious towards me I couldn't resist.

[StickNik]

Would love to know the source of that Thomas Sowell quote at 1:21

[simplythebestk]

My counter rebuttal, yes let's think of the children. So let's force all parents to be parents. 
Step 1: stop trying to change the world it's not going to happen. The bubble is harmful in the long run.Step 2: educate your children with morals. Step 3: give them your time. That's right even if it means no hobby time for you. You had the children no one pointed a gun to your head and forced you to procreate.Step 4: tell them no and or give them the alternative to earn it.

[hossrex]

If a speaker makes an irrational claim, using an emotionally sophistic argument, it isn't the responsibility of the listener to demonstrate evidence to the contrary.

The onus is always on the person making a claim.

That's a foundational aspect of critical thinking.

[Acesahn]

I read a review of the anime "Outlaw Star" Where the guy criticized the women for looking like they all go to the gym and have breasts of silicone. Yea, he's totally right. The guy who created Outlaw star most likely has a fetish for strong women and enjoys big titties... how is this a problem? Are we pretending like such a thing doesnt have a market? As in... 95% of men? lol sex sells, and its not sexist to lust after fantasy creations, who were created to be lusted after. Men and women do it all the time, its healthy, its natural.

[dustlesswalnut]

People making that claim often do it for religious or puritanical reasons, which regularly discourage rational thought. Given that so many people fail to "grow out" of those irrational beliefs, it's reasonable for those making arguments "for the children" actually believe them.

[Acesahn]

I hate when writers get blasted for being "pathetic" or "nerdy" for focusing on the sexuality of women or men in their writing. If romance and sexuality are part of the story... if the writer isnt aroused by his own characters and scenarios... how sensual could an audience find it? I see this kind of criticism thrown out all the time by modern day morale puritans. Who... oddly enough, would find traditional values of the past as sexist as objectifying women.

[Mectojic]

I don't know if this is your area of expertise, but maybe you could do some videos about Plato, Aristotle and Socrates!

[ChemistryTalkwithDan]

How would you classify the dismissive retort "Haters gonna hate!"? That one really bothers me as it essentially prevents people from making their case. I hear it a lot from supporters of The Force Awakens.

[PelenTan]

I would counter your argument about love and children by pointing out that we aren't the only creatures alive on this planet. The first example that comes to mind is that of ants. Is it "love" that drives them to spend their entire lives caring for their young? And even if you factor in "love" in the "why" of our caring for children, is it love of the children or love of ourselves in that most parents want "mini-me's". Something that I think flew over most people's heads from the Austin Powers movies. The references were so, intentionally, heavy handed that the subtle ones were easily missed.

On topic though, you may not have picked the best example. For the simple reason that the proofs for the argument as to whether corrupting children is possible are really all over the place. So in this case, the most logical response _is_ to go after argument that is easily provable that also guts the initial argument (think of the kids). In fact many of the counter arguments to patently insane arguments is to go for the easily provable one. And isn't that best? I'm reminded of the proverb about how to turn a mountain into a valley: One stone at a time. Otherwise you argue incessantly on if there should _be_ a mountain or a valley.

[ChemistryTalkwithDan]

How would you classify the dismissive retort "Haters gonna hate!"? That one really bothers me as it essentially prevents people from making their case. I hear it a lot from supporters of The Force Awakens.