Debate Guide: Cognitive distortions - Revision history

Etenne at 18:18, 4 August 2014

2014-08-04T18:18:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 4 August 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4721459/Supportive-distortions-an-analysis-of.html cognitive distortions], often read like NAMbLA pamphlets"''		:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4721459/Supportive-distortions-an-analysis-of.html cognitive distortions], often read like [[NAMbLA]] pamphlets"''

	Rationalisations may be rational. To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalisation is a sign of weakness. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are in fact identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo. By defining a common or objectionable argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common in a certain sample, that sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled ''circulus in probando'' argument. So in conclusion, the rare, but often abused "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion cognitive distortion]" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority if ever there was one.		Rationalisations may be rational. To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalisation is a sign of weakness. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are in fact identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo. By defining a common or objectionable argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common in a certain sample, that sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled ''circulus in probando'' argument. So in conclusion, the rare, but often abused "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion cognitive distortion]" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority if ever there was one.
Line 15:		Line 15:
	*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]]		*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]]
	*[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research.		*[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research.

			[[Category:Encyclopedia]]

Lysander at 22:39, 11 May 2014

2014-05-11T22:39:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 11 May 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~See~~:		:''"Pedophiles preach a set of twisted rationalizations that encourage and justify abuse. The testimonies of child molesters, who have been shown to express [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4721459/Supportive-distortions-an-analysis-of.html cognitive distortions], often read like NAMbLA pamphlets"''

	http://~~newgon~~.~~com~~/wiki		Rationalisations may be rational. To simply state that something has been "rationalised" and thereafter fail to explain the faultiness of that rationalisation is a sign of weakness. It is this weakness that we see in the highly subjective analyses of pedophile message boards as havens for cognitively distorted reasoning. These "distortions" are in fact identified whenever a pedophile author argues or makes an assertion against the medical or legal status quo. By defining a common or objectionable argument as distorted and establishing that because it is common in a certain sample, that sample is inherently distorted, the observer achieves nothing but a cynically veiled ''circulus in probando'' argument. So in conclusion, the rare, but often abused "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion cognitive distortion]" argument is a lazy and hypocritical abuse of scientific authority if ever there was one.

	~~... and click on "Debate guide".~~		Circulus in probando:

	~~[[Category~~:~~Encyclopedia]]~~		:"We can trust what the bible says about God ... because it is the inspired word of God".

	[[~~Category:Research~~]]		:"We know that the pedophiles are cognitively distorted ... because the pedophiles use cognitive distortions".

			One example justifies the assumed authority of God with the assumed auhority of God. The other justifies the prevalence of assumed cognitive distortions by identifying a prevalence of assumed cognitive distortions.

			==See also==

			*[[Cognitive distortion (psychology)]]
			*[[Cognitive distortion (pseudoscience)]] - Some research.

User4: New page: See: http://newgon.com/wiki ... and click on "Debate guide". Category:Encyclopedia Category:Research

2014-03-26T21:35:03Z

New page: See: http://newgon.com/wiki ... and click on "Debate guide". Category:Encyclopedia Category:Research

New page

See:

http://newgon.com/wiki

... and click on "Debate guide".

[[Category:Encyclopedia]]

[[Category:Research]]