The slippery slope of self identifying rears it ugly head in Pedophilia

[Littlejoe]

A Chicago man molests 3 young girls and his defense is..."he is a 9 y.o. boy trapped in a adult's body..."

I wonder who else is going to go for the "self-identification defense".

Slippery slopes arguments aren't always a fallacy it appears...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...124-story.html

[seer]

A Chicago man molests 3 young girls and his defense is..."he is a 9 y.o. boy trapped in a adult's body..."

I wonder who else is going to go for the "self-identification defense".

Slippery slopes arguments aren't always a fallacy it appears...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...124-story.html

Our liberal friends need to defend this poor soul!

[rogue06]

Why should he be limited to just what some scrap of paper (birth certificate) says? Ageism at it's worst.

[Leonhard]

Our liberal friends need to defend this poor soul!

Why would I do this?

[Zymologist]

Well, we know that "boy" is a very ambiguous word, so....

[mossrose]

This thread is not what I expected.

On the new posts page on my iPad I only see, "The slippery slope of self identifying rears".

I expected quite a few butts who were not really butts, but were self identifying as such.

Now that silliness is out of the way, carry on with this very serious issue.

[seer]

Why would I do this?

Well don't you believe him? He thinks he is a child trapped in an older body! Just exploring his sexuality with his peers...It is all age appropriate.

[Leonhard]

Well don't you believe him? He thinks he is a child trapped in an older body! Just exploring his sexuality with his peers...It is all age appropriate.

Its all a bit tacky frankly seer. This is using someone who is clearly either insane, or is in the book for one of the dumbest defenses I've ever heard, to fling mud on liberals.

Want me to bring out the mothers who said God had commanded them to drown their kids? Is that an effective criticism of Christian conservatives who believe in submission to God?

He committed a crime against children. No sane liberal is ever going to argue differently. Whatever beliefs, feelings or identities he might have, he's been able to enjoy the advantages of being an adult and navigating that world. Doing that means he's subject to expectations of conduct. A nine-year old wouldn't have been able to live and do what he did. Therefore he took advantage of someone less powerful in a highly inappropriate and damaging way.

No liberal, not even the most weird radical third-wave gender-reconstrucitonalist feminist would ever defend him.

I'm saying that not as someone who sees the world like that - though I do have my sympathies (its the background I came out of before becoming Christian) - but I know them well enough to know that what he did could never be unified with their ethical views.

As a parody I think this one will only sound good to conservatives who haven't really engaged with feminist writers.

[Teallaura]

Its all a bit tacky frankly seer. This is using someone who is clearly either insane, or is in the book for one of the dumbest defenses I've ever heard, to fling mud on liberals.

Want me to bring out the mothers who said God had commanded them to drown their kids? Is that an effective criticism of Christian conservatives who believe in submission to God?

He committed a crime against children. No sane liberal is ever going to argue differently. Whatever beliefs, feelings or identities he might have, he's been able to enjoy the advantages of being an adult and navigating that world. Doing that means he's subject to expectations of conduct. A nine-year old wouldn't have been able to live and do what he did. Therefore he took advantage of someone less powerful in a highly inappropriate and damaging way.

No liberal, not even the most weird radical third-wave gender-reconstrucitonalist feminist would ever defend him.

I'm saying that not as someone who sees the world like that - though I do have my sympathies (its the background I came out of before becoming Christian) - but I know them well enough to know that what he did could never be unified with their ethical views.

As a parody I think this one will only sound good to conservatives who haven't really engaged with feminist writers.

*emphasis mine

Unfortunately, some will.

Somewhere we crossed the line of understanding mitigation (such as mental illness) as justification. The gender issue creates an impossible situation for ardent supporters - the logic is no different and you can't claim a special case here.

Plus, some people are just nuts.

[seer]

Its all a bit tacky frankly seer. This is using someone who is clearly either insane, or is in the book for one of the dumbest defenses I've ever heard, to fling mud on liberals.

Want me to bring out the mothers who said God had commanded them to drown their kids? Is that an effective criticism of Christian conservatives who believe in submission to God?

He committed a crime against children. No sane liberal is ever going to argue differently. Whatever beliefs, feelings or identities he might have, he's been able to enjoy the advantages of being an adult and navigating that world. Doing that means he's subject to expectations of conduct. A nine-year old wouldn't have been able to live and do what he did. Therefore he took advantage of someone less powerful in a highly inappropriate and damaging way.

No liberal, not even the most weird radical third-wave gender-reconstrucitonalist feminist would ever defend him.

I'm saying that not as someone who sees the world like that - though I do have my sympathies (its the background I came out of before becoming Christian) - but I know them well enough to know that what he did could never be unified with their ethical views.

As a parody I think this one will only sound good to conservatives who haven't really engaged with feminist writers.

I'm sorry Leonhard, the left opened up this can of worms, and legally he does not have a leg to stand on - but that is today. I for instance never thought a white woman claiming to be, and identifying as, a black woman would be taken seriously - but she was - by the left.

[Mountain Man]

No liberal, not even the most weird radical third-wave gender-reconstrucitonalist feminist would ever defend him.

Yes, we're all aware that liberals will be hypocritical in response to this. That's the point.

[One Bad Pig]

A Chicago man molests 3 young girls and his defense is..."he is a 9 y.o. boy trapped in a adult's body..."

I wonder who else is going to go for the "self-identification defense".

Slippery slopes arguments aren't always a fallacy it appears...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...124-story.html

Eh, just because he thinks he's nine doesn't give him an excuse to molest girls of that age - even in a liberal world. It's like Bill Clinton offering the excuse, "It's okay, the women were my age."

[Leonhard]

Unfortunately, some will.

We can all find people who believe the Earth to be flat. The point is whether the left would seriously defend this. They wouldn't, its not even part of the worldview of the feminists that this would be somehow okay to do. That's why I said only conservatives, who hadn't read or dealt with this stuff would seriously think this is good way to cast mud on liberals.

Somewhere we crossed the line of understanding mitigation (such as mental illness) as justification. The gender issue creates an impossible situation for ardent supporters - the logic is no different and you can't claim a special case here.

How would you logically set up a mirror situation with someone who considers themselves of the opposite sex. So you have a woman, who identifies as a man, and she makes that excuse in court to get out of what crime? Where's the parallel? There might be a logical step in your reasoning I can't follow.

1: Gender is a social construct
2: ???
3: Therefore you can rape children

Even if someone identify as being a child, irresponsible and so forth, it would still be true that they were an adult. They lived and acted in the world as an adult. They knew how to do that. Therefore they can be counted on not doing certain things.

Plus, some people are just nuts.

Yes, but we can find them for all sides, so who cares?

[Juvenal]

Unfortunately, some will.

Using outliers to paint a general portrait of one's opponents is the definition of smear tactics.

Unfortunately, most of the right wing zealots here will defend this.

[Psychic Missile]

When someone's brain works like someone younger than them, that's called a developmental disability. This has literally nothing to do with trans issues.