Alice? I might agree with you. in part, and perhaps even in whole. who knows.
what I strongly disagree with, however...
taking a tone.
lecturing, as if to children, in a school marm posturing fashion.
no asking. no persuading. no convincing.
the thank you in advance for your cooperation vibe.
now, since you invoked logical fallacies, that pandora's box is now fair game.
--- by invoking logical fallacies, you are implying Socratic debate rules.
--- you cannot selectively pick out ad hominem as your "zinger".
--- you have to take the entire ball of wax, that is socratic.
and here is *your* biggest logical fallacy.
'forceful pronouncement from a perceived position of authority'.
this logical fallacy works on the young children in your classroom.
it has no effect on the world at large around you. not unless the onlooker *chooses* to allow you this privilege.
but we have more socratic rules broken.
in socratic debate, all terms used, must be agreed upon by both sides.
you don't.
you simply invoke dramatic sounding terms and phrases...
"sexualization of minors"
"depicts the exploitation of children"
and "we" don't get to all decide if these terms aren't just a bit overly dramatic.
cartoon characters and drawings, HAVE no age.
no "children" are being exploited.
but wait, there's more!
you fail to lay out ANY case for cause and effect.
children suffered these horrific attacks and exploitations, since time immemorial.
LONG before any of these cartoon characters and drawings were ever once dreamed up.
clearly, there's zero cause and effect established.
again.
I *might* even agree with you? in part or perhaps in whole.
but shaking your finger and ordering everyone how its going to be...
nope.
your argument, isn't.
your source? "trust me, bro."
