Oh dear: Hooking Kids on Sex II - YouTube
That's satire right? Please tell me this is satire...

So you think PP teaching 10-year-olds how to masturbate is a good thing?

But they aren't.

That video is full of logical fallacies made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Escpecially for those that think sex and our bodies are bad and dirty.

Limprod is a radio clown, a ratings chaser, who righty political types are scared to death of. He is fair game. And no way do you get to use inflammatory rhetoric and superlatives and I don't. Plain and simple.

Her we go again, we can debate facts and somehow get a consensus, but don't get mad at someone that you throw rocks at, and they throw back. Especially when you frame a debate about business policy as a freedom of religion issue and fail to recognize when the church jumps into the public domain of business, then it has to play by business rules.

Its like the freedom of speech allows you the right to say what you please, but doesn't entitle employers to keep you working if you feel religiously bound to not make him some money. The church doesn't pay for female pills, she pays through contractual agreement to have premiums deducted from her check like all of us do, so she pays for a service that a group rate provides for those employees.

Employees cannot by law be bound to the same constraint of a religious organization, or their flock, because they are not a part of a flock but are employees with certain rights and guarantee.

The law defines that role, not the church. Fee for service is an accepted way of doing business, and the church is clearly overstepping the boundaries of church, and state by attempting to blur the lines between religion, and business.

Like the pharmacist who works for a pharmacy. He is bound by law to sell the products the employer has at the risk of his job! Or find another job right?

Jokes on you if you believe the clearly adult satire as a statement of fact.

Why is your name calling OK ,but mine isn't ?

Interesting you say that ;because the way I see it ,the biggest winner in this whole thing is Big Pharma. Is this payback by the President for their support for Obamacare ? Note the President doesn't qualify his mandate by saying they must offer generics .

The answer for the Church is clear. If you force them to either surrender their morals or to stop providing insurance they will chose to stop providing insurance. That works very well for the Obots because their goal is to destroy private insurance and have everyone in a single payer socialist system .

You can stop the pretext of women's rights to health care choices . That is bunk . Or are we to believe that the left thinks pregnancy is a disease ? Geesh!. and this thread questions the rights understanding of reproduction!

I'm not commenting on the whole video, I asked a specific question. It has nothing to do with anyone thinking "sex and our bodies are bad and dirty". That sir is a logical fallacy.

Which fallacy is it?

You're the smart guy, it's in my answer so you figure it out.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And your point is what, you can't figure it out? You assume because I don't think it's smart for PP to teach 10 year-olds how to masturbate with or without graphic images that would get a grown man arrested, that I think "sex and our bodies are bad and dirty". You can't get there from that.

Nice list karma and I see all of them in play on this site

Agreed. It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Current Events has never been the place for logical discussion. For an example of what it *could* be you can check out any thread at Slashdot.org. Anyone using false arguments based on fallacies gets modded down by their peers. There are some very learned people there.

A fallacy could be seen as a mistake in reasoning or inference and I think this is what some people are pointing out. The problem is that any list of fallacies presented is not exhaustive. What also makes it difficult is that some statements can contain more than on fallacy.

Perhaps we could look at the different types of fallacies as belonging to particular sub-species. Dog is a sub-species. So if something looks like a dog, acts like a dog and smells like a dog it is probably a dog. It belongs to this sub-species.

By the same token if a statement appears to be ambigious ( a type of broad deffinition of a particular fallacy) then we might apply the same criterion. If it looks ambigious, appears to be ambigious then perhaps we need to invistigatge the possibility that this statement is a specific type of fallacy that involves ambiguity.

Don't know if this is of any help.

Tut

Here's a fallacy . Sandra Fluke is not the typical co ed from Georgetown U she is portrayed as .In fact she enrolled there specifically to challenge their medical coverage . She is in fact an activist for the cause. She is also an activist for LGBTQ rights ,advocating that sex change operations should also be a "right" covered by employer provided insurance.

So Rush is wrong in his satirical description . He apologized for his words . But when speaking of fallices ;make sure you include the left's fallacies in their portrayal of Fluke.


Ps... do you think the President will drop Bill Maher as a $million donor given his frequent derogatory characterizations of women ?

Hi Tom,

This is not an example of a fallacy. This is an example of someone who is a plant undertaking an undercover operation. It would also be an example of dishonesty

Tut

Hello again, tom,

You're right... Yeah, I read where female "activists", don't have the same women parts as NON activists do.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

A college student activist, who would have thunk it? Seems to be a lot of those lately.

You guys would consider her an "astroturf" activist if she were a conservative. Among other, less printable things.

Indeed .It doesn't come close to terms like teabagger ;or that urban dictionary definition of 'Santorum' .

A real fallacy I think is the notion that churches can control insurance company product that they sell.

Another fallacy, and just MY opinion, is the notion that churches pay for abortions or contraceptions. They don't as a matter of facts. The insured pays a premium for a policy. The church subsidizes a policy. The free market at work.

Its no fallacy to me that the right is undermining the affordable care act, as insurance companies yet again raise the cost of premiums, and the nation has a lower class that can't afford them. Its no fallacy that the money goes to the 1% faster a lot faster than it trickles down to anyone else. Its no fallacy that investors have not invested in JOBS, at a fast enough rate, while most banks, companies, and individuals benefit from the law to make safe money they extract from the economy as a whole.

Its no fallacy that republicans have a social agenda that cuts their own safety net while enriching those that need it least. Its no fallacy that republicans have angered females by minimizing their unique needs. Its no fallacy that republican state governments have focused more on overturning settled law, and turning the clock back on social gains, and education than they have in creating solutions to the needs of the many, who live in their state.

See, no name calling.