ad hominem, insults and personal attacks

As I write about the different fallacies I see in youtube comments regarding ABDLs, keep in mind that ABDLs and those advocating for them make many fallacies themselves. To say that ABDLs are morally wrong or crazy because they make fallacious arguments would be making the fallacy fallacy. Just because those advocating for ABDLs sometimes make poor arguments does not mean that it is morally wrong to wear diapers, or those doing so are crazy. Those making such a claim still have the burden of proof, which has yet to be met.

Still, I would like to promote better use of logic among those advocating for ABDLs, so please take care not to make the fallacies I point out in this blog, especially this one.

In particular, do not respond to people attacking ABDLs by calling them intolerant or a bigot or words to this effect. Maybe they are a bigot, maybe they aren't, but that is besides the point. The issue at hand is ABDLs, so try to contain your arguments to facts regarding ABDLs. If someone is just making shit up about us, then point that out. Calling them a bigot is not refuting their false statements and only distracts from doing so.

Yes, those that attack us often fall back on insults. If you insult them back then all a third party is going to see is two people throwing insults at each other. Now, this isn't all that different from most internet arguments, but think about this: Someone that is attacking us is not saying much if anything about themselves. They are a nobody and they will not be remembered. What will be remembered is that "ABDLs lash out and are irrational when they are confronted."

Someone sees two people flinging mud at each other but only one of them has an identity, then even though both were losers the one with the identity is the one remembered as a loser because the other party is not remembered at all. They might be a jackass, but we are seen as the small child screaming back at a jackass. I know we like to act like children. That is our thing. But the first word in Adult Baby is the word Adult. If you are going to be an adult baby you first need to be an adult.

That said, if you are going to result to insults it would be better to use childish insults like calling them a poopyhead because at least then you get some irony.

Many insults and abusive attacks are better left alone. If someone insults you you might dismiss them by saying "thank you for sharing." If someone is threatening violence you could reply with "good luck with that." Those making insults don't really deserve a response, so why wast your time? To those threatening violence, it is an empty threat. You might consider reporting them to youtube. You would be justified in doing so unless you threatened them back. Threatening them back is worse than useless. You just look like just as much a moron as they are.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). 

Now, strictly speaking, an insult is not an ad hominem. Just because someone makes insults does not invalidate any legitimate arguments that they make. Again, that would the the fallacy fallacy. However, those that are hostile towards us have yet to make a real argument. They are arguing against what we do and enjoy. This in and of itself is not an ad hominem. And remember that I am discouraging ABDLs and their advocates from making ad hominem fallacies just as much.

They do sometimes resort to personal attacks beyond attacking wearing diapers and babyclothes and roleplaying. The fist one that comes to mind is circumstantial ad hominem.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.).

How this is used against ABDLs is something to the effect of "Of course you think there is nothing wrong with it, you are one." or "Crazy people don't think they are crazy." By those arguments we are not allowed to defend ourselves or refute any false statements or fallacies of logic.

I will likely expand this article, and others.

Distinguishing statements of "fact" from emotions

I want to write about ad hominem attacks and emotional arguments, but first I want to address something that has been bothering me about recent comments on youtube.

When someone is being critical, or appearing to being critical of ABDLs, try to make a distinction between people expressing their personal feelings about ABDLs from those who are making statements alluding to "facts."

People have a right to their own opinion, but they do not have a right to their own facts. If someone makes statements that are false you should correct them. On the other hand, if someone is squicked or creeped out by the idea of ABDLs then that is their own business, and I think it is an understandable reaction. People have a right to their own emotions, this stuff pushes some pretty serious buttons, and we need to respect that. It is wrong to attack someone because they have had an unfavorable emotional response to us.

In the BDSM scene there are quite a few people that are squicked by ABDLs, and even ageplayers in general. Most of these people that I have encountered in person were of the YKINMK variety.

Now, I imagine that some people are thinking that just because someone has an emotional reaction doesn't mean they have to express it by posting a comment. This is the internet we are talking about, and on youtube especially, many people do not put much thought before rushing to post a comment. Stupidity is the rule rather than the exception on youtube. Try to remember this and to not become yet another example of it.

Let me give you the example that prompted me to write this:

 If this was my child, I'd be so disappointed. 

Now, I can see how some people could interpret this as a personal attack. You read it as saying ABDLs are a disappointment. But the way he is saying this is with an I statement. He is expressing his own personal feelings, and my main point here is he has a right to his personal feelings. If one of his children was an ABDL, and who knows maybe they are, then it is quite possible this would be his immediate reaction if he if he ever found out. I would not blame him for this.

A person is going to have a reaction that is beyond their control in this situation. Now I believe that parents should unconditionally love their children. But he did not say that he would stop loving their child or disown them or anything. There is no way to tell what he would react in the long term if he were actually put in this situation. Perhaps he would try to understand it, or at least understand that this is only one part of their adult child's life and learn to live and let live.

If you attack someone for a post like this, and I have seen other people say this before, then you are only making us look defensive and reactionary. You are not promoting understanding. You have closed their minds for them. How can you expect them to respect our emotions if you do not respect their emotions?

Burden of Proof & The Philosophy of Liberty

I am going to expand on this later. For now a quote from The Nizkor Project.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

How this would apply to ABDLs. Someone is asserting that it is wrong to be ABDL. By making a positive claim they have the burden of proof.

For example, someone who claims that Aliens in UFOs exist has the burden of proof. They can come up with with many arguments as to why they are unable to provide any substantial evidence. Because it is impossible for someone to proof the nonexistance of aliens those making the claim that the do exist have the burden of proof.

In the USA, and other countries that embrace liberty, the general assumption is that a person is the best person to decide what to do with their own lives. If someone makes a claim that an activity is morally wrong they have the burden of proof to show how this activity harms the life liberty or property of other people.

For example, let's say that some people juggle geese. To simplify things lets say they are toy geese. A person can say that it is wrong to juggle toy geese. They can say that it is not normal. They can say people who enjoy juggling toy geese want to have sex with real life geese. The first argument is irrelevant as there is no moral or legal obligation to be normal. The second, while disturbing, amounts to an accusation of thoughtcrime, unless you have evidence that geese jugglers are actually having sex with geese. A person cannot disprove that they don't want to have sex with real life geese. Therefore, the burden of proof is on those making the claim that it is wrong to juggle toy geese.

A person might say that it is crazy to juggle toy geese, or event to want to juggle toy geese. They would have the burden of proof of showing that it is crazy. They would have to show that in and of itself, the activity of juggling geese prevents them from supporting themselves and having relationships with other people. And you would have to show evidence from the real world. Just because you imagine that the activity of juggling geese in your spare time would prevent you from having a job, from having a place to live, paying your bills, eating a healthy diet, and interacting with other people.

It is not up to us to defend what we do with our lives. We are free to live our lives as we see fit, so long as we are not violating the life, liberty or property of another. This is the philosophy of liberty.

I quite possibly will expand this article, as well as others, and plan on writing a separate article on the subject of mental health.

Argument from Personal Belief

The fallacy of argument from personal belief is better known as Argument from ignorance. I prefer to use AFPB to avoid drama over the word ignorant.

This is important, but I am lazy right now so I am just going to cut and paste from wikipedia.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).^[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

 As this applies to ABDLs:

Someone might believe that ABDLs interests lie not in age regression and/or wearing diapers, but in real life children. This belief has no basis in reality. Just because someone believes something to be true does not make it true. And yes, this ties significantly into the shifting of the burden of proof.

Arguing on the Internet, part 1

The primary reason I am starting this blog is I have read and participated in discussions on youtube about ABDLs. There are people who express negative feelings towards ABDLs. Some of these people are simply squicked, others are openly hostile to us.

Part of what I would like to do is discuss what I think are appropriate responses to certain arguments brought up in such discussions. Another is to discuss legitimate questions that are brought up, such as the subject of origins.

The first thing I think you should keep in mind if you are going to engage in discussion is don't take it personally. In the real world you will not please everyone. Some people are just going to be determined to dislike you. Others are "equal opportunity bigots" who hate everyone. If someone doesn't like you or us, that is their problem not yours. You are never going to convince everyone that it is OK to be ABDL. If you think you are going to change people's minds by brute force then you are going in with the wrong attitude and you will fail.

And the second thing I want you to keep in mind is that trying to prove that "it is OK to be ABDL" is the wrong argument. This is what is called a shifting of the burden of proof. If someone is going to make the argument that activity is morally wrong, or that people who engage in such activities are crazy, they have the burden of proof. Until such time that they have provided proof that it is wrong to be ABDL we are under no obligation to prove that it is OK to be ABDL.

From here arguments made by those hostile to ABDLs succumb to one of two fallacies, an argument based on personal belief, and an appeal to normality.

Third, I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with logical fallacies if you are going to advocate for ABDLs on youtube or the internet. Avoid emotional arguments and especially avoid making ad homninem attacks. I will likely discuss these and other fallacies at length.

Last, I would like to remind you that if you are posting comments on youtube, YOU ARE A MORON. Please remember this every time you post a comment to youtube.