When rightoids respond like this, they immediately tell you they don't actually give a shit about arguing in good faith
The whole "homosexuality exists in 1,000 species" argument exists as a counterargument to the rightoid argument of "It's not natural"
So when they propose shit like "Well cannibalism and eating babies and rape is found in 1,000 species" they propose the idea that you shouldn't be listening to nature
... Which defeats the entire fucking point of their first argument of "it's not natural." Because when they say THAT they imply Natural = good and unnatural = bad (and then they imply conservatism as natural and leftism as unnatural) but when the "It's not natural" argument fails, they quite literally flip
Somehow, they don't see the fundamental contradictions in the shit they say. They don't care about arguing, they only argue because they know the shit they ACTUALLY want to do to you will land them in prison for life
The Goomba Fallacy is when you hear two or more contrasting, contradictory statements that you disagree with that come from the same group or location, then morph them into thinking those positions are held simultaneously by one person or community as a whole.
Because you then think that those contradicting points are the beliefs of this singular person/community, you feel inclined to think “wow, that person/community is stupid. They’re contradicting themselves! What an idiot! I’m the only smart person here!” whilst not realising that you are projecting those positions onto the wider group, rather than recognising them as the viewpoints of individuals.
So for example: one Twitter user says “tomatoes are disgusting and only morons like them”, while another says “tomatoes are delicious and only morons dislike them.”
If you proceeded to say “Twitter can’t make up its mind about tomatoes, clearly Twitter users are idiots!” then you’d be committing the Goomba Fallacy.
Well the opinions that are contradictory aren’t usually so simplistic. So it would be weird to even attribute “I hate [tomatoes]” and “I like [tomatoes]” to the same person. Even for the dumbest goomba-fallacy-committer they would see that these aren’t the same person.
Better examples might be: “immigrants take all the jobs” and “immigrants are all lazy and on welfare”.
Ah I see what you mean. I guess I figured the simplistic aspect of it was to really sort of ELI5 it or really showcase the idea of it rather than give a realistic example (plus maybe they just couldn't think of anything better when typing it? idk). But I do think the example you gave is definitely something I've actually seen before and is more nuanced to show what tends to actually happen
It's mixing two people's contradicting beliefs into one person who believes both. For example you read two opinions on twitter, and then you believe that twitter is stupid because you read two contradicting opinions from two different people who believe in separate things.
Oh, the rules are quite elementary my dear Watson.
Its not hypocrisy if I do it. Im too special to be special pleading. I am right because I am right. God is just because god's propaganda team said so. Thoughtcrime = heresy, wrongspeak = blasphemy. I never lie! Except when I do.
Arguing that humans should be 'natural' when we fly around in jets and sit staring at carefully constructed precious metals and minerals for entertainment inside houses constructed from pieces of land torn up by machines bigger than any animals I think it is more of a coping mechanism than it is grounded in any meaningful reality.
Literally, The Card Says Moops idea from InnuendoStudios. They change the rules on the fly, and wholeheartedly support whatever position serves them best in the moment.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing against rαpe because it’s unnatural. People genuinely use the argument “homosexuality is not natural”, because they don’t have any good arguments against it. When it comes to rαpe, we don’t need to use the appeal to nature fallacy because it’s bad for so many obvious reasons.
Really? There are places on the internet where you can't, so I'm just used to writing it that way. It's simple and everyone knows what I'm saying, but because it uses a letter from a different alphabet (Greek), no AI will pick up on it.
This is not true, they do have a sensorbot that goes around. I have been banned for things that later got my account unbanned when they actually had a human look at it.
It doesn't seem like rape is a word that they check but there are other words that they do check. So yes there is still censoring on Reddit.
Don't listen to this person, you're allowed to decide what you are and aren't willing to risk when it comes to your account. I've had my account banned for saying certain words or phrases and then later it was unbanned when an actual and looked at the reason of the ban. Discord also can ban people just automatically. Some people have even been banned for sharing a picture that is pretty harmless but because it's a picture that is a screenshot of a larger video that is not harmless they get their account banned and then they get put on a list because it's a CSAM video. Remember, the screenshot itself and the image is perfectly fine but the video is not and this is bad because a person who doesn't know better because they are not aware of the larger video may be told to share the photo by bad actors and then they get their account banned.
So yes, Reddit and Discord can both use AI, too determine whether or not an account should be banned.
I've had my account banned in the past and then had it reinstated and it's been because a machine just made a mistake.
It's easy to say that people shouldn't be using words or censorship but when those people are not having to risk their account that I don't think it's really fair to shame other people. I think that it is perfectly fine to criticize the way the words are replaced so like for example saying grape or sewer slide or unalive can definitely be criticized but those phrases can easily be replaced with something more tasteful.
SA, ending themselves, and taking a life can all be used as proper replacements.
Like kids shows do it all the time, they use words like destroy for example to refer to death.
а (U+0430)
But just to let you this letter which is the cerv of a (U+0061) looks just the same and it's a lot more indistinguishable.
Animals do often exhibit trauma responses and experience stress as a result of events that humans would consider sexual violence. I don't know what the post means by "rapeophobia" but forced copulation is certainly a negative experience and female animals have numerous behavioural and physical adaptations to avoid it.
I'm glad you do. Chimpanzees will routinely get rid of aggressive dominant males. The leaders who cooperate, groom others, share, etc, are selected to lead because they're liked tend to live long lives.
Aggressive males who take over by force? Bye-bye to your fingies, toesies, family jewels face, ears... And if you're lucky, then they might mercy or accidentally kill you before they roll out and leave you there to die. Either that, or the whole troop falls apart because they'd rather risk dying on their own than stick around. Which says a lot for highly social animals who like to stick to the same family unit for life.
Except aversion to rape exists in nearly every mammal and avian. To the degree that there are entire groups of animals that evolved to make rape impossible.
This is why the right are cowards and narcissists.
I will always put forth the arguments and beliefs I actually follow, because they’re my arguments and beliefs. I’ll strengthen them against criticism or remove them if there’s a better alternative.
American right wingers will never do this in the current climate because they’re using deliberate ambiguity to support whatever it is they want. Disproving this ludicrous assertion is pointless because they’re don’t believe it themselves. They put the cart before the horse as they want a reason to adhere to something they already want to believe. Instead they should have some honesty and either be comfortable with the fact they’re bigots, massive hypocrites, or change their values and get better for doing so.
When rightoids respond like this, they immediately tell you they don't actually give a shit about arguing in good faith
The whole "homosexuality exists in 1,000 species" argument exists as a counterargument to the rightoid argument of "It's not natural"
So when they propose shit like "Well cannibalism and eating babies and rape is found in 1,000 species" they propose the idea that you shouldn't be listening to nature
... Which defeats the entire fucking point of their first argument of "it's not natural." Because when they say THAT they imply Natural = good and unnatural = bad (and then they imply conservatism as natural and leftism as unnatural) but when the "It's not natural" argument fails, they quite literally flip
Somehow, they don't see the fundamental contradictions in the shit they say. They don't care about arguing, they only argue because they know the shit they ACTUALLY want to do to you will land them in prison for life
Possible goomba fallacy
Not really, I've seen countless threads (mainly on Xitter) where the same person will make both of these arguments
What is the goomba fallacy?
The Goomba Fallacy is when you hear two or more contrasting, contradictory statements that you disagree with that come from the same group or location, then morph them into thinking those positions are held simultaneously by one person or community as a whole.
Because you then think that those contradicting points are the beliefs of this singular person/community, you feel inclined to think “wow, that person/community is stupid. They’re contradicting themselves! What an idiot! I’m the only smart person here!” whilst not realising that you are projecting those positions onto the wider group, rather than recognising them as the viewpoints of individuals.
So for example: one Twitter user says “tomatoes are disgusting and only morons like them”, while another says “tomatoes are delicious and only morons dislike them.”
If you proceeded to say “Twitter can’t make up its mind about tomatoes, clearly Twitter users are idiots!” then you’d be committing the Goomba Fallacy.
Not the best example tbh, but an otherwise excellent explanation.
What's wrong with the example?
Well the opinions that are contradictory aren’t usually so simplistic. So it would be weird to even attribute “I hate [tomatoes]” and “I like [tomatoes]” to the same person. Even for the dumbest goomba-fallacy-committer they would see that these aren’t the same person.
Better examples might be: “immigrants take all the jobs” and “immigrants are all lazy and on welfare”.
Ah I see what you mean. I guess I figured the simplistic aspect of it was to really sort of ELI5 it or really showcase the idea of it rather than give a realistic example (plus maybe they just couldn't think of anything better when typing it? idk). But I do think the example you gave is definitely something I've actually seen before and is more nuanced to show what tends to actually happen
Hey, we all appreciate the explanation. I’ve never heard of that before.
But what does it have to do with evil mushroom people?
It's mixing two people's contradicting beliefs into one person who believes both. For example you read two opinions on twitter, and then you believe that twitter is stupid because you read two contradicting opinions from two different people who believe in separate things.
Oh, the rules are quite elementary my dear Watson.
Its not hypocrisy if I do it. Im too special to be special pleading. I am right because I am right. God is just because god's propaganda team said so. Thoughtcrime = heresy, wrongspeak = blasphemy. I never lie! Except when I do.
You get the gist.
Arguing that humans should be 'natural' when we fly around in jets and sit staring at carefully constructed precious metals and minerals for entertainment inside houses constructed from pieces of land torn up by machines bigger than any animals I think it is more of a coping mechanism than it is grounded in any meaningful reality.
I think you’re right. But this is probably just evidence that on the whole, the naturalistic argument is disappearing.
Prepare yourselves for a generation of even more religious zealotry as they stop trying to make their point from an appeal to nature/science.
insert that one quote about the Antisemite not being held by the value of words
Literally, The Card Says Moops idea from InnuendoStudios. They change the rules on the fly, and wholeheartedly support whatever position serves them best in the moment.
They do more flips than in a Cirque du Soleil show.
So what i'm getting is that whether something happens or not in nature isn't a good indicator of whether that thing is moral or not?
Color me shocked!
So animals also eat their young, are we doing that now also?
Are you agreeing with me?
I would hope that's obvious, I am opposed to eating children, or even adults, unless you are like really hungry...
I have a Modest Proposal for you from a guy named Jon Swift.
What if youre hungry for a nibble?
I don’t think anyone’s arguing against rαpe because it’s unnatural. People genuinely use the argument “homosexuality is not natural”, because they don’t have any good arguments against it. When it comes to rαpe, we don’t need to use the appeal to nature fallacy because it’s bad for so many obvious reasons.
Exactly!
You can just say "rape".
Really? There are places on the internet where you can't, so I'm just used to writing it that way. It's simple and everyone knows what I'm saying, but because it uses a letter from a different alphabet (Greek), no AI will pick up on it.
On Reddit, there’s no censoring, so you can feel free to say rape or porn or other “taboo” words
This is not true, they do have a sensorbot that goes around. I have been banned for things that later got my account unbanned when they actually had a human look at it.
It doesn't seem like rape is a word that they check but there are other words that they do check. So yes there is still censoring on Reddit.
That's not reddit-wide, though, that's just subreddits. They usually have their rules in the sidebar.
Oh, I was not aware of that. Thank you for the correction/context!
Don't listen to this person, you're allowed to decide what you are and aren't willing to risk when it comes to your account. I've had my account banned for saying certain words or phrases and then later it was unbanned when an actual and looked at the reason of the ban. Discord also can ban people just automatically. Some people have even been banned for sharing a picture that is pretty harmless but because it's a picture that is a screenshot of a larger video that is not harmless they get their account banned and then they get put on a list because it's a CSAM video. Remember, the screenshot itself and the image is perfectly fine but the video is not and this is bad because a person who doesn't know better because they are not aware of the larger video may be told to share the photo by bad actors and then they get their account banned.
So yes, Reddit and Discord can both use AI, too determine whether or not an account should be banned.
I've had my account banned in the past and then had it reinstated and it's been because a machine just made a mistake.
It's easy to say that people shouldn't be using words or censorship but when those people are not having to risk their account that I don't think it's really fair to shame other people. I think that it is perfectly fine to criticize the way the words are replaced so like for example saying grape or sewer slide or unalive can definitely be criticized but those phrases can easily be replaced with something more tasteful.
SA, ending themselves, and taking a life can all be used as proper replacements.
Like kids shows do it all the time, they use words like destroy for example to refer to death.
а (U+0430)
But just to let you this letter which is the cerv of a (U+0061) looks just the same and it's a lot more indistinguishable.
Animals do often exhibit trauma responses and experience stress as a result of events that humans would consider sexual violence. I don't know what the post means by "rapeophobia" but forced copulation is certainly a negative experience and female animals have numerous behavioural and physical adaptations to avoid it.
Corkscrew!
Female hyenas over here going “yeah? I’ll just rape you right back instead.”
Wanna know some more cool facts?
Most males of a species never get to breed. It's entirely natural and happens in a lot of different species.
In one of our closest relatives, chimpanzees, going out of your way to antagonize your own kind will get you beaten and killed by other chimpanzees.
The fact I can now name at least two antifascist monkey related incidents is absolutely fascinating. Monkeys are fuckin awesome.
I'm glad you do. Chimpanzees will routinely get rid of aggressive dominant males. The leaders who cooperate, groom others, share, etc, are selected to lead because they're liked tend to live long lives.
Aggressive males who take over by force? Bye-bye to your fingies, toesies, family jewels face, ears... And if you're lucky, then they might mercy or accidentally kill you before they roll out and leave you there to die. Either that, or the whole troop falls apart because they'd rather risk dying on their own than stick around. Which says a lot for highly social animals who like to stick to the same family unit for life.
This just tells me that OOP doesn't understand WHY rape is wrong. Because they don't understand consent
These people are just evil. They don't understand the difference between right and wrong.
The worst part about this is the amount of likes on that post. The polarization of ANY topic just makes people lose what little braincells they had
No, not all men, but 95% of the time it’s a man.
If you ignore the other 45% sure.
I'm not even sure if this is supposed to be anti-gay or pro-rape.
both considering what type of guy would post this shit
The example they're using doesn't even fucking work because shock horror, animals don't like getting raped either and will actively fight back.
Animals don't enjoy rape. They do fear it.
Animals don't tend to fear gay sex although some species combine them as a act of dominance so there is that.
If you need an old book written for bronze age warlords to know what and be a 'good person', id be very worried about you.
Except aversion to rape exists in nearly every mammal and avian. To the degree that there are entire groups of animals that evolved to make rape impossible.
People bring up animals in debates about homosexuality to refute the homophobes' appeal to nature fallacy.
Homophobes: It's unnatural.
Ally: Actually it's been observed in nature.
It's using their own argument against them.
This reminds me of MiniMinuteMen when he said some people make arguments so fucking insane you can't really dispute it with any logic
They're so dumb
Most subtle homophobic ragebait.
How is being gay as bad as rape?
Animals like having gay sex, animals do not like being raped.
This is why the right are cowards and narcissists.
I will always put forth the arguments and beliefs I actually follow, because they’re my arguments and beliefs. I’ll strengthen them against criticism or remove them if there’s a better alternative.
American right wingers will never do this in the current climate because they’re using deliberate ambiguity to support whatever it is they want. Disproving this ludicrous assertion is pointless because they’re don’t believe it themselves. They put the cart before the horse as they want a reason to adhere to something they already want to believe. Instead they should have some honesty and either be comfortable with the fact they’re bigots, massive hypocrites, or change their values and get better for doing so.