# Not pit-level annoyance, just a peeve about pedo and rape hysteria... **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 30, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470 "2010-11-30T22:07:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/241 "2010-12-03T06:52:11Z")
That stuff is sophist and weaselly, but not ad homionem. That also isn’t what I was talking about. It’s the tiresome “Dio show” garbage that I was talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/242 "2010-12-03T06:53:48Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > How can you argue that a 30 year old _can’t ever_ have sex with a 15 year old, and yet a 60 year old _can_ have sex with a 30 year old, unless you have some quantitative definition of “complete neurological development” that you are hiding from us? Because there is such a thing as completed brain development, but I don’t think 60 year olds should be banging 30 year olds either. It’s a lesser degree of creepy, but still creepy. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/243 "2010-12-03T07:09:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because there is such a thing as completed brain development That is not an argument, and it is evading my question. You are continuing to make facile statements without the slightest effort to back them up. ETA: I can add to my list point 6: this is your argument: (“completed neurological development” –\> “completed brain development”) ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/244 "2010-12-03T07:14:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s twice in this thread that you have erroneously accused me of not knowing the definition of a particular fallacy. let me help you. Anything in the thread which is directed at me personally is an _ad hominem_ attack. All of the “Dio show” bullshit, and the puerile snickering is pure ad hominem It’s directed at me as a person, not at my arguments, and has no place outside of the Pit. Oh my god it’s amazing!\*\*\* You’re completely wrong AGAIN!\*\*\* You know that the ad hom and all the other latin argument fallacies are _fallacies_, right? And you know what a fallacy is, right? Well, no, you obviously don’t. These are examples of _ad hominem_: [ul] [li]“Dio, you’re an ass, so everything you say is stupid and false, including what you’ve said about the topic we’re discussing.”[/li][li]“Anything Dio says is worthless because he’s a clueless fool.”[/li][li]“Dio, you’ve ben wrong every time I’ve ever checked, so you’re wrong now.”[/li][li]“Dio, you kick puppies for fun, so you must be wrong.”[/li][/ul] And here are examples that look like it, but in fact **are NOT** _ad hominem_ : [ul] [li]“Dio, you’re an asshole.”[/li][li]“Oh shit, it’s the Dio Show! Not again!”[/li][li]“Dio, you’re a clueless fool and an asshole. As for your arguments about X topic, you are wrong because you said ABC and ABC is not true. You also said XYZ, and XYZ was proven to be false years ago when they found out that XYZ was really ZPS. Also, you’re an idiot.”[/li][/ul] Do you see the difference? It’s possible you don’t, lots of people might not. The first set of arguments are genuine _ad hominem_ fallacies because they seek to establish that \*your arguments \*suck because _YOU_ suck, and that’s a fallacy. Your arguments may in fact suck (and frequently do, but not always), and you may in fact suck (I won’t say you suck, but I will say your behavior sucks), but the fact that you suck is not _ **why** _ your arguments suck. Your arguments suck or rock on their own, the degree to which you suck has nothing to do with it. The second set of arguments are NOT _ad hominem_ fallacies because they do not seek to associate your suckage with the suckage of your arguments. They are attacks on you alone without referencing your arguments, and attacks on your arguments \*as well \*as you, without any attempt to suggest that because you suck, your arguments must as well. As long as the opponent addresses the argument itself, no degree of insults directed at you make it _ad hominem_, and as long as the opponent doesn’t address the argument in any way and confines themselves to attacks on you personally, then it’s not _ad hominem_ either. _ad hominem_ arguments seek to discredit your argument by discrediting you, without ever addressing the substance of the argument you’ve made. Sarcasm and personal insults are just sarcasm and personal insults. Furthermore, it is completely legitimate to attack your behavior, when the behavior being attacked is directly relevant to your arguments, and that describes what I have done. I have bitched about the way you argue (or avoid arguing) Your debate/discussion conduct is very objectionable, and it’s legitimate to bitch you out for it or blow you off because of it. No one is obligated to tolerate the way you behave, especially when you are met with good faith responses that you treat shabbily,and when you argue dishonestly, which you do _constantly_. From Wiki: > [@](#): > > An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to l_ink the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise._[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] **but it is not always fallacious.** **For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue**.[3] Consider yourself enlightened. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/245 "2010-12-03T07:20:32Z")
Everybody, I am adding to my list (thank you **Diogenes the Cynic** ): Dio’s argumentative algorithm, as evidenced by his responses to my questions in this thread: If you are asked to clarify your definitions, say: 1. “Use a fucking dictionary” Once that proves embarrassing: 2. Repeat yourself using slightly different language (eg “cognitive development” --\> “cognitive parity”) If asked to clarify your definition of the slightly modified phrase, say to use: 3. “any metric you want.” If a metric is provided (which again proves embarrassing): 4. Revert to previous language (eg “cognitive parity” --\> “cognitive development”), and point out that the metric provided for the newly adopted phrase doesn’t fit the previous one But don’t worry that someone might point this out, because you’ve got a trump card: 5. Deny that the metric even exists. If you are repeatedly pressed on the issue, concede: 6. “I define it the way neurologists define it” If asked how neurologists define it: 7. repeat yourself using slightly different language again (this time “completed neurological development” --\> “completed brain development”) ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/246 "2010-12-03T07:23:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That stuff is sophist and weaselly, but not ad homionem. That also isn’t what I was talking about. It’s the tiresome “Dio show” garbage that I was talking about. It’s weaselly to call you out on your sophistry? I don’t think so. I think it’s dead on. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/247 "2010-12-03T07:24:12Z")
This is still pure, obfuscatory sophism that is not goung to result in a successful argument that it’s ok to fuck underaged girls. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/248 "2010-12-03T07:25:27Z")
**Stoid** , please confine your irrelevant, fallacious, ad homionem garbage to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/249 "2010-12-03T07:28:22Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > By what metric are you defining “cognitive parity”? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > By any metric you want. > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > OK. Let’s go by IQ then. Care to take back your last answer? One chance no backsies. IQ is a really icky metric. Mine was tested at age 9, and I scored considerably higher than the average adult. Do you really want to continue with IQ as a metric of equality considering the inference is that it’s okay to sleep with children if their IQ is higher than yours? Bear in mind test scores are considered reliable as young as age 8… ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/250 "2010-12-03T07:28:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is still pure, obfuscatory sophism that is not goung to result in a successful argument that it’s ok to fuck underaged girls. No but your argument is interesting. You’ve argued that we can know when someone has _completed **neurological** development_ because we have a weapon at our disposal – we can tell when they have _completed **brain** development_! Please go on! ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/251 "2010-12-03T07:31:07Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > IQ is a really icky metric. Mine was tested at age 9, and I scored considerably higher than the average adult. Do you really want to continue with IQ as a metric of equality considering the inference is that it’s okay to sleep with children if their IQ is higher than yours? Bear in mind test scores are considered reliable as young as age 8… I have argued no such thing. And I agree that IQ is not a great metric (though it isn’t so bad, and I suspect you may not know that IQ scores are not comparable in the way you might think – you can’t just compare numbers from different tests and across age groups). But if you read the thread the point was to get Dio to actually define what the hell he is talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/252 "2010-12-03T07:31:44Z")
Still not working. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/253 "2010-12-03T07:34:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Still not working. But I’m just trying to understand you. You are saying that: A) we know when someone has completed **neurological** development because b) we know when they have completed **brain** development! Do I have that right? Is that your argument? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/254 "2010-12-03T07:44:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Puberty” is not an age, nor is it a stage of emotional or cognitive development. Correctamundo! Which is why the fact that someone has gone through puberty cannot be used as the _sole_ criterion for determining whether sexual activity between people of widely divergent ages is appropriate, and frankly I’m shocked (and creeped out…shudder) that you would ever think it could be! On the other hand, the fact that someone has _not_ gone through puberty is the only thing you need to consider to instantly know that sexual activity of pretty much any kind, but especially between people of widely divergent ages, is absolutely _not_ appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/255 "2010-12-03T07:49:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > **Stoid** , please confine your irrelevant, fallacious, ad homionem garbage to the Pit. Watcha talkin’ bout, Dio? Check a few posts back, you’ll learn that there’s no ad hominem coming from me. Or anyone. [ol] [li]Your style of argument blows. (not ad hom, directly on point. And true.)[/li][li]Your arguments blow. (not ad hom, directly on point, and true.)[/li] [/ol] ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/256 "2010-12-03T07:50:39Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Correctamundo! Which is why the fact that someone has gone through puberty cannot be used as the _sole_ criterion for determining whether sexual activity between people of widely divergent ages is appropriate, and frankly I’m shocked (and creeped out…shudder) that you would ever think it could be! You’re the one who said it should be a criterion, not me. I think puberty is irrelevant, and I was shocked that you said it should be a dividing line. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, the fact that someone has _not_ gone through puberty is the only thing you need to consider to instantly know that sexual activity of pretty much any kind, but especially between people of widely divergent ages, is absolutely _not_ appropriate. What age is always too young? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/257 "2010-12-03T07:52:02Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Watcha talkin’ bout, Dio? Check a few posts back, you’ll learn that there’s no ad hominem coming from me. Or anyone. > > [ol] > [li]Your style of argument blows. (not ad hom, directly on point. And true.)[/li][li]Your arguments blow. (not ad hom, directly on point, and true.)[/li] > [/ol] Take it to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/258 "2010-12-03T08:01:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Take it to the Pit. Why are you still here if you can’t define the premise of your argument: when one has _completed neurological development_. At the very least you could help add to your list of tautological definitions. You’ve explained to me that one has completed _neurological_ development when they have completed _brain_ development. I get that, I really do. But now I need one more thing from you. When has someone completed _brain_ development? I’ll make it easy for you: Someone has completed _brain_ development when they have: completed \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ development. Just fill in the blank! ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/259 "2010-12-03T09:21:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’re the one who said it should be a criterion, not me. I think puberty is irrelevant, and I was shocked that you said it should be a dividing line. This is what’s known as a lie. Why are you so afraid to tell the truth? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470/260 "2010-12-03T09:22:45Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Take it to the Pit. If you want a whole thread devoted to you, you’re going to have to start it yourself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-pit-level-annoyance-just-a-peeve-about-pedo-and-rape-hysteria/562470.md?page=14)