>>12077508>I might find rape very desirable>yet I still consider it to be immoral.Well, then it's not as desirable as you think it is, now is it?
Desirability and morality are deeply intricate. A morale you adhere to might not be desirable to you, but it is desirable to a set of people. Morality is always about the desirability expressed by an entity, and that entity is not restricted to mere individuals.
In your case, there's two conflicting morality sets:
That of your animal self:
>I should fuck that ass [if I want to feel good]And that of society:
>I shouldn't fuck that ass [because society will punish me]So it is desirable to fuck a hoe, but strongly more desirable to not fuck a hoe. Each desirability is tied to its own morality and defines it.
>Omission of what is implicit is not a logical fallacyExcept it is, because what is implicit can be wrong, and you don't build injunctions on false premises without committing a logical fallacy.
I don't deny that in some circumstances it is harmless and practically negligible.
For instance, if your mom told you that you should eat more, she obviously meant to tell you that you should eat more IF you don't wanna be sick.
But she makes the assumption that you effectively don't wanna be sick, something she ultimately doesn't know because she's not you. So a negligeable and harmless logical error, but a logical error nonetheless.
Now, the more harmful manifestations of this fallacy is when it is used by influential people like politicians or religious leaders to use people without revealing their motives.
Huge dissonances between intents and reality can occur and massively trick people. We sadly verify that such logical fallacies exist and trick people everyday.
